State Of Louisiana VS Aaron D. Salter
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
r NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LO SIANA I COURT OIL APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2011 KA 2330 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS 60 AARON D SALTER Judgment Rendered SEP 2 1 2012 On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany Trial Court fro 48 9 Division E 750 The Honorable William J Burris Judge Presiding Walter P Reed C oansel for Appellee District Attorney State ofsLoilisiaria Covington Louisiana and Kathryn W Landry Special Appeals Counsel Baton Rouge Louisiana Frank Sloan Counsel for DeferkdantiAppellwat Louisiana Appellate Project Aaron 1 Salter Mandeville Louisiana BEFORE PARRO HUGHES AND WELCH JJ HUGHES I The defendant Aaron D Salter was charged by bill of information with one count of aggravated burglary a violation of LSAR 14 and pled not guilty S 60 Following a jury trial he was found guilty as charged Thereafter the State filed a habitual offender bill of information against the defendant Following a hearing he was found to be a fourth felony habitual offender and was sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence He now appeals challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and the trial court overruling of his objections s to certain testimony at trial For the following reasons we affirm the conviction habitual offender adjudication and sentence FACTS Lori Lee Turner testified at trial She was sixtyseven years old She conceded she had used cocaine in the past Following Hurricane Katrina she began living in a FEMA trailer on U Highway 190 in Slidell S She had known the defendant for many years because he grew up with her children and nephews On August 26 2007 the defendant knocked at Turner door Turner opened s the door and saw the defendant had a white female later identified as J with him B whom she had never seen before The defendant wanted to smoke crack cocaine in s Turner trailer Turner told the defendant he could not stay in her trailer The defendant stated he and J did not have any more money for a hotel Turner told B them they could park by her trailer and sleep in the defendant car The defendant s and J went to the defendant car and Turner locked her door and went to bed B s Predicate 1 was set forth as the defendant September 2 1982 conviction under Twentysecond s Judicial District Court Docket 101901 for simple burglary Predicate 2 was set forth as the defendant s March 17 1983 conviction under Twenty second Judicial District Court Docket 107209 for simple burglary Predicate 3 was set forth as the defendant September 16 1986 conviction under Twenty s second Judicial District Court Docket 149069 for first degree robbery 2 We reference this victim only by her initials See LSAR 46 S 1844 W 0 Subsequently J knocked at Turner door and asked to use the bathroom B s Turner let J in and locked the door Turner saw bruises on J arm neck and B s B back B J was very upset crying and shaking She stated the defendant had kidnapped her for three days had forced her to have sex with him had beaten her and had been making her trick J claimed that if she did not bring the defendant B B tgo back out there drugs or money he would beat her J stated I can scared I am Turner told J that she would not let her go back outside and that the B defendant wasn coming inside Turner placed a hammer which she kept in her t trailer for protection in her lap Thereafter the defendant began beating and pulling on Turner door like a madman He pulled the door open and Turner struck him s with her hammer The defendant pushed Turner aside grabbed J by her hair and B pulled her out of the trailer Turner called out to her neighbors for help and three neighbors responded They pulled J away from the defendant and began beating B him The defendant ran to his vehicle and fled from the scene J was taken to the B hospital She did not testify at trial SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In assignment of error number 1 the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict He concedes that the evidence sufficiently established he entered Turner trailer without permission and committed a simple s battery therein or in entering or leaving the trailer He notes however simple battery is not a felony and he was not armed and did not commit a theft While the State s theory of the case was that the defendant entered the trailer with the intent to kidnap B J and leave in his car the defendant argues the completed kidnapping offense had to occur inside the trailer but it was impossible for the defendant to force J B into his vehicle and leave with her inside the trailer of Ms Turner The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any 3 rational trier of fact could concede the State proved the essential elements of the crime and the defendant identity as the perpetrator of that crime beyond a s reasonable doubt In conducting this review we also must be expressly mindful of scircumstantial evidence test which states in part assuming every fact to Louisiana be proved that the evidence tends to prove in order to convict every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded Positive identification by only one witness may be sufficient to support the defendant conviction See LSAR 15 State ve s S 438 Wright 98 0601 La App 1 st Cir 2 730 So 2d 485 486 87 writs denied 99 19 99 0802 La 10 748 So 1157 and 20000895 La 11 17 773 So 99 29 2d 00 2d 732 When a conviction is based on both direct and circumstantial evidence the reviewing court must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution When the direct evidence is thus viewed the facts established by the direct evidence and the facts reasonably inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime Wright 730 So at 487 2d Aggravated burglary is the unauthorized entering of any inhabited dwelling where a person is present with the intent to commit a felony or any theft therein if the offender 3 c a battery upon any person while in such ommits place or in entering or leaving such place LSA R 14 60 S Simple kidnapping a felony is the intentional and forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one place to another without her consent LSA R S 1 A 45 14 Under the statute the distance traversed is immaterial Nor is it necessary to specify the place to which the victim was carried State v Bertrand 247 La 232 170 So 386 38 La 1964 cert denied 382 U 960 86 S 442 2d S Ct 15 L364 1965 2d Ed El The defendant argues that the State had to prove he forced his way into the trailer to kidnap J by forcing her back into his vehicle B However the s defendant intentional and forcible seizing and dragging of J from the trailer B without her consent completed the offense ofsimple kidnapping and also satisfied the intent to commit a felony therein element of the offense of aggravated burglary Additionally the verdict rendered in this case indicates the jury rejected the s defendant theory that Turner voluntarily allowed the defendant into her trailer to use drugs with him and that J voluntarily stayed with the defendant to use drugs B with him When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense that hypothesis falls and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis that raises a reasonable doubt State v Moten 510 So 55 61 La App 1st Cir writ 2d denied 514 So 126 La 1987 No such hypothesis exists in the instant case 2d Further the verdict indicates the jury accepted Turner stestimony and rejected the s defendant attempts to discredit that testimony This court will not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence to overturn a fact finder s determination of guilt The testimony of the victim alone is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense The trier offact may accept or reject in whole or in part the testimony of any witness State v Lofton 96 1429 La App 1st Cir 3 691 97 27 2d 2d So 1365 1368 writ denied 97 1124 La 10 701 So 1331 97 17 In reviewing the evidence we also cannot say that the jury determination was s irrational under the facts and circumstances presented to them See State v Ordodi 0207 2006 La 11 946 So 654 662 06 29 2d An appellate court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of the fact finder and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to and rationally rejected by the jury State v Calloway 20072306 La 1 1 So3d 417 418 per curiam 09 21 5 After a thorough review of the record we are convinced that any rational trier of fact viewing the evidence presented in this case in the light most favorable to the State could find the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence all of the elements of aggravated burglary and simple kidnapping and the defendant identity as the s perpetrator of those offenses OBJECTIONS TO TESTIMONY In assignment of error number 2 the defendant argues that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in overruling his objections to certain testimony from Lori Lee Turner and St Tammany Parish Property Detective Jared Lunsford Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the present trial or hearing offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted LSAC art 801 E 0 Statements which are events speaking for themselves under the immediate pressure of the occurrence through the instructive impulsive and spontaneous words and acts of the participants and not the words of the participants when narrating the events and which are necessary incidents of the criminal act or immediate concomitants of it or form in conjunction with it one continuous transaction are not hearsay LSAC art 801 Hearsay is not E 4 D admissible except as otherwise provided by the Louisiana Code of Evidence or other legislation LSAC art 802 E Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence LSAC art 401 All relevant E evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by positive law which is not relevant is not admissible LSA C art 402 E Evidence Although relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the 6 danger of unfair prejudice confusion of the issues or misleading the jury or by considerations ofundue delay or waste of time LSA C art 403 E It is well settled that courts play not admit evidence of other crimes to show the defendant as a man of bad character who has acted in conformity with his bad character See LSA C art 404 Evidence of other crimes wrongs or acts E 1 B committed by the defendant is generally inadmissible because of the substantial risk of grave prejudice to the defendant However the State may introduce evidence of other crimes wrongs or acts if it establishes an independent and relevant reason such as proof of motive opportunity intent preparation plan knowledge identity or absence of mistake or accident See LSAC art E 1 B 404 Upon request by the accused the State must provide the defendant with reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing before trial if it intends to offer such evidence Even when the other crimes evidence is offered for a purpose allowed under Article 404 the evidence is not admissible unless it tends to 1 B prove a material fact at issue or to rebut a defendant sdefense The State also bears the burden of proving that the defendant committed the other crimes wrongs or acts State v Rose 20060402 La 2949 So 1236 1243 07 22 2d Any inculpatory evidence is prejudicial to a defendant especially when it is probative to a high degree State v Germain 433 So 110 118 La 1983 2d As used in the balancing test Prejudicial limits the introduction of probative evidence of prior misconduct only when it is unduly and unfairly prejudicial Id see also Old Chief v United States 519 U 172 180 117 S 644 650 136 S Ct 2d Ed L 574 1997 The term unfair prejudice as to a criminal defendant speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged Rose 949 So at 1244 2d 7 Louisiana Code of Evidence article 404 also authorizes the admission of 1 B evidence of other crimes wrongs or acts when the evidence relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding In State v Brewington 601 So 656 657 La 1992 per curiam 2d the Louisiana Supreme Court indicated its approval ofthe admission of other crimes evidence under this portion of LSA C art 404 when it is related and E 1 B intertwined with the charged offense to such an extent that the state could not have accurately presented its case without reference to it The res gestae doctrine in Louisiana is broad and includes not only spontaneous utterances and declarations made before or after the commission of the crime but also testimony of witnesses and police officers pertaining to what they heard or observed during or after the commission of the crime if a continuous chain of events is evident under the circumstances State v Taylor 2001 1638 La 03 4 1 838 So 729 741 cert denied 540 U 1103 124 S 1036 157 2d S Ct 2d Ed L 886 2004 Further the res gestae doctrine incorporates a rule of narrative completeness by which the prosecution may fairly seek to place its evidence before the jurors as much to tell a story of guiltiness as to support an inference of guilt to convince the jurors a guilty verdict would be morally reasonable as much as to point to the discrete elements of a defendant legal fault Taylor 838 So at 743 s 2d quoting Old Chief v United States 519 U at 188 1 S at 654 S 7 Ct Prior to trial the defendant moved that under LSAC art 403 and LSA E E C art 404 the State should be prohibited from eliciting any evidence B concerning the aggravated rape and kidnapping that had allegedly occurred August 23 2007 to August 25 2007 The trial court denied the motion finding that the evidence at issue was interrelated and intertwined with the charged offense to such an extent that the State could not accurately present its case without reference to it The court noted the evidence was necessary to establish the felony intended when the defendant entered Turner trailer s The def applied to this ridant court for supervisory relief from the ruling but we denied his writ application State v Salter 20111007 La App 1st Cir 7 unpublished 11 5 At trial the defense objected on the basis of hearsay during the testimony of Turner after she stated J told me what the defendant did to her The trial B court overruled the objection finding the testimo was part of the res gestae Thereafter Turner testified concerning J allegations against the defendant s B The defense also objected on the basis ofhearsay during the testimony of St Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office Property Detective Jared Lunsford after the State asked him if Turner had related what had occurred prior to his arrival at the scene The trial court overruled the objection citing LSAC art 803 E 2 Thereafter Detective Lunsford testified Turner told him she had defended J B after J came to her door and told her she had been raped and was being held B against her will There was no error or abuse of discretion in denying the objection to Turner s testimony The testimony concerning J allegations was not offered to prove the s B truth of the matter asserted but was offered to show why Turner wanted to keep the defendant out of her trailer Moreover the trial court correctly concluded J s B allegations related to conduct that constituted an integral part of the aggravated burglary The evidence concerning J allegations against the defendant was s B related and intertwined with the aggravated burglary to such an extent that the State could not have accurately presented its case without reference to the evidence Further assuming arguendo that the balancing test of LSAC art 403 is E 3 Louisiana Code of Evidence article 803 provides a hearsay exception even when the declarant is 2 available as a witness for a statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition 9 applicable to integral act evidence admissible under LSAC art 404 that E 1 B test was satisfied in this matter The defendant claimed J and Turner were both B using drugs with him Evidence that the defendant was holding J against her will B was highly probative of his motive intent and plan Accordingly the prejudicial effect to the defendant from the challenged evidence did not rise to the level of undue or unfair prejudice when balanced against the probative value of the evidence Detective Lunsford stestimony concerning Turner claims of what J had s B told her was cumulative of the account of those claims by Turner which was admissible for the reasons noted above Accordingly error if any in the admission of hearsay from Detective Lunsford was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt 5 See LSAC art 921 P Cr Also during the testimony of Detective Lunsford the defense objected on the basis of c for a legal conclusion after the State asked Detective alls Lunsford based on the facts as you know them here today and based on your experience is there a particular offense that you would have pursued a warrant for based on the events that occurred at that trailer park The trial court overruled the objection Thereafter Detective Lunsford testified In hindsight of 20 I would have pursued aggravated burglary There was also no error in the admission of this testimony A witness not testifying as an expert may provide testimony in the 4 The Louisiana Supreme Court has left open the question of the applicability of the Article 403 test to integral act evidence admissible under LSA C art 404 See State v Colomb 982813 La E 1 B 99 1 10 747 So 1074 1076 per curiam 2d s Confrontation errors are subject to harmlesserror analysis Delaware v Van Arsdall 475 U 673 106 a S Ct S 1431 89 L 674 1986 The correct inquiry is whether the reviewing court assuming that the 2d Ed damaging potential of the cross examination were fully realized is nonetheless convinced that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt Van Arsdall 475 U at 684 106 S at 1438 Factors to be S Ct considered by the reviewing court include the importance of the witness stestimony in the prosecution s case whether the testimony was cumulative the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points the extent of cross examination otherwise permitted and of course the overall strength of the prosecution case Van Arsdall 475 U at 684 106 s S Ct S at 1438 State v Wille 559 So 1321 1332 La 1990 cert denied 506 U 880 113 S 231 2d S Ct 121 L 167 1992 The verdict may stand if the reviewing court determines that the guilty verdict 2d Ed rendered in the particular trial is surely unattributable to the error Sullivan v Louisiana 508 U 275 279 S 113 S 2078 2081 124 L 182 1993 State v Broadway 962659 La 10 753 So 801 Ct 2d Ed 99 19 2d 817 cert denied 529 U 1056 120 S 1562 146 L 466 2000 S Ct 2d Ed M form of opinions or inferences which are rationally based on his perception and helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue LSAC art 701 E The testimony explained why no photographs were taken of and no physical evidence was collected in regard to the damage to s Turner door In its opening statement the defense placed the absence of any such evidence at issue The prejudicial effect to the defendant from the challenged evidence did not rise to the level of undue or unfair prejudice when balanced against the probative value of the evidence This assignment of error is without merit CONVICTION HABITUALOFFENDER SENTENCE AFFIRMED 11 ADJUDICATION AND
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
