State Of Louisiana VS Kendrick Mattire
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2011 KA 2390 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS KENDRICK MATTIRE Judgment Rendered September 21 2012 Appealed from the Twenty First Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Livingston State of Louisiana Trial Court Number 20698 Honorable M Douglas Hughes Judge Presiding Scott M Perrilloux David Guidry Greg Murphy Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana Charlotte Herbert Anne Le Malnar Cathy Peever Patricia Parker Amos Livingston LA Gregory S Webb Prairievile LA Counsel for DefendantAppellant Kendrick Mattire Charles E Miller Jasper Brock McComb MS BEFORE WHIPPLE McCLENDON AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ WHIPPLE J The defendant Kendrick Mattire was indicted by a grand jury with three counts of armed robbery in violation of LSAR S 64 14 and one count of carjacking in violation of LSA R 14 The defendant pled not guilty and S 64 2 following a jury trial was found guilty as charged He filed several posttrial motions all of which were denied On each count of armed robbery the trial court sentenced the defendant to twentyfive years at hard labor with the sentences to run consecutively On the count of carjacking the court sentenced the defendant to ten years at hard labor to run consecutively to the three armed robbery sentences The defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence which defendant now appeals designating nine assignments of was denied error The We affirm the convictions and sentences FACTS After a threeday trial the defendant was found guilty of the March 10 2006 armed robbery of Shanna Hamilton the March 29 2006 armed robbery of Patricia Baker and the March 29 2006 armed robbery and carjacking of Cathy Gill Tara Hunter a codefendant in this case was also found guilty of the armed robbery of Patricia Baker The March 1 2006 Armed Robbery of Shanna Hamilton 0 Several witnesses observed the defendant and Hunter at the Broadway Place Shopping Center in Denham 2006 The defendant Springs Louisiana on the afternoon of March 10 was first seen when he walked into Advantage Home and Properties Advantage a real estate office located next to the shopping center Kimberly Smart a real estate agent who worked at Advantage was at the front desk of the office talking with one of Advantage tenants Krystal West the s Hunter was also charged with the armed robbery ofShanna Hamilton but was acquitted on that 2charge A the time of trial the witness was referred to as Krystal West Malone 2 owner of a fabric store in the asked to use the shopping center when the defendant walked in and Smart told him yes and the defendant went into the restroom restroom but exited almost immediately and then walked out of the office Smart and West both noticed a female outside too but neither was able to get a good look at her West then left Advantage and drove to her fabric store parking immediately in front of the store entrance She noticed a woman and the same man she had seen at Advantage coming around the corner walking down the sidewalk together and looking into store windows West waited for them to walk past her store before exiting her vehicle A few minutes later someone came to her store to tell her that Kean a dry cleaning store located in the shopping center had been s robbed Shortly after West left Advantage Smart walked over to check on two of s Advantage tenants in the shopping center She also observed the man and woman looking into store windows and then saw the man walk into Kean and s later exit She went to Kean and spoke with the clerk there Shanna Hamilton s who informed her that she had just been robbed at gunpoint Around 2 p Hamilton who was only seventeen years old at the time 00 m of the robbery was tagging clothes and talking on the telephone around 2 00 P m when a young black male came into the store and asked to use the bathroom She pointed him towards the bathroom which was located in the back of the store She continued doing work in the front of the then noticed a woman pacing in front of the store but began feeling uneas Y and store and looking around Hamilton felt that the woman might be looking for the man in the bathroom and was thinking of calling out to her when the man suddenly came to the front counter held a gun to Hamilton face and s told her to give him the money While the man kept the gun to her face Hamilton took out the cash drawer and gave him all the bills then 3 told him there was a safe in the back of the store with a bag of money in it The man followed her around a dividing wall towards the back of the store where the safe was kept and she gave the man a bag of cash from the safe At that point they heard another customer walk into the store so the man put the gun into his hoodie told her to stay where she was and ran out Michael Armentor was walking into Kean when a tall black man came out s quickly Armentor did not see a female outside the store Once Armentor was inside Kean Hamilton told him that she had just been robbed Armentor then left s to look for the man he saw when he entered the store but his search was unsuccessful Detective Calvin Bowden with the Livingston Parish Sheriff Office s LPSO responded to the Kean robbery He testified at trial that when he went to s s Kean he was looking for a tall skinny black male with dark clothes and a black overweight female When he spoke with Hamilton immediately following the robbery she described the couple as a tall skinny black male wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and blue jeans with a skullcap on his head and a black female with unkempt hair wearing a green and white shirt with pants Armentor described the man as a tall skinny black male with a black jacket baggy blue jeans and a black skull cap on his head Smart described him as a tall black man wearing dark clothes dark jeans and a white T with some type of tight cap on his shirt head West described the man as wearing long pants and a black sweatshirt and the woman as wearing a looselyfitting T and Capri pants None of the witnesses shirt described facial characteristics ofthe man or woman Detective Bowden looked around the shopping center for possible evidence and tried to obtain fingerprints from the door handle at Kean no usable prints sbut were recovered He also discovered that the Key Point Federal Credit Union Key Point located in the Broadway Place Shopping Center had a surveillance camera Amy Welch who was vice president of lending at Key Point at that time handled the bank security s and compliance Welch testified that the bank had a camera by the back entrance and that she retrieved the footage from that camera for March 10 2006 The only activity that she recalled seeing on the tape showed two individuals who appeared to fit the description of the perpetrators but the images were not clear enough to see facial features Because the camera equipment did not allow retrieval of video she obtained some still shots which she burned onto a CD and gave to the LPSO The March 29 2006 Armed Robbery of Patricia Baker At around 2 p on March 29 2006 Patricia Baker returned to her home 00 m in Albany Louisiana following a shopping trip to Baton Rouge She went into the backyard to check on her dog and was returning to her car in the driveway when she noticed a gray fourdoor vehicle had parked there She walked up to the vehicle which had two people in it and asked if she could help The driver er was a slim black male with gold teeth wearing a white shirt Baker initially thought that the passenger was another man but at trial she described the passenger as a woman wearing a white longsleeved shirt with a buttonup collar with her hair slicked back The couple asked Baker for directions to New Orleans and they engaged in conversation for about ten to fifteen minutes during which time Baker was standing about three to four feet from the vehicle Baker told them she had to go in order to take care of her other dog but as she turned around and bent down to get the dog chain the driver came up behind her and ordered her to give him her s keys A struggle ensued for the keys and her purse which was on her shoulder The man became increasingly violent and tried to put a gun into her mouth When he cocked the gun the other person in the car who Baker noticed had moved to the s driver seat screamed at him and said to just take the purse and let get out of s here Eventually the strap on the purse broke the man took it and then he and 5 the other individual drove off in the gray car Baker called 911 and the police arrived at which time she gave a statement describing the perpetrators as two black males one heavyset and the other tall and slim She did not provide any facial descriptions Shortly after Baker was robbed Alton Elms who was working at Range Car Wash in Denham Springs noticed a purse lying on top of a full garbage can There were police in the area so he gave the purse to an officer and showed him where he had found it At trial the purse which had only one strap was identified as the one taken from Baker The March 29 2006 Armed Robbery and Carjacking of Cathy Gill On March 29 2006 around 2 p Cathy Gill a manager at Denham 30 m Finance in Denham Springs left her office to run some errands driving a 2004 Ford F150 truck When she returned to the office she parked on the side of her building and remained in the truck as she gathered some items to take inside with her She noticed another car pull into the driveway and presumed it was a Then her driver door swung open and a man with a gun stood sside He put the gun under her chin and told her to give him her money and her customer there purse She handed him her purse and told him to calm down He also asked for her keys and told her to move over During this time the man was standing about 18 inches from her face and was holding the back of her hair with one hand and the gun with the other He put the gun in her mouth and told her to move over and to hurry as they was already after him Gill acted as ifshe was about to move over then kicked the man and jumped out of the truck She hid behind another car as she watched him get into the truck and drive away She also saw a gray car being driven away by a heavyset woman Detective Roger May a patrol officer with the Denham Springs Police Department responded to Gill 911 call A BeOnthe LookOut Communication s 6 BOLO was issued for a skinny black male wearing a white Tshirt driving a white Ford truck Detective May recalled that Gill described the man as a black skinny male wearing pants and a white shirt and that he had weird looking or beady eyes s Gill truck was recovered in April 2006 being driven in Baton Rouge by a black male Identifications of the defendant and Hunter LPSO Detective Woody Overton responded to the Kean robbery on March s 10 On March 29 he learned of the robbery of Patricia Baker and from his experience thought it was possible that the robbery of Baker might be connected to the Kean robbery When he heard about the robbery of Cathy Gill he thought s it was also related Then later that evening he received a lead from a source in Hammond Louisiana which included the names of the defendant and codefendant He used the basic information from that lead to develop a photographic lineup To do so he contacted a State agency which used a computer program to develop a lineup including the person of interest and five other similar looking faces On March 30 2006 he met with Cathy Gill and showed her the photographic lineup Gill immediately identified the defendant photo as the s person who had taken her truck the previous day She also testified at trial that the defendant was the person who robbed her Following Gill identification s Detective Overton obtained an arrest warrant for the defendant Later that day Detective Overton met with Baker and showed her a photographic lineup She also identified the defendant as the man who had robbed her the previous day At trial Baker said that she selected the defendant picture s because she recognized him The following day March 31 2006 Baker again met with Detective Overton and he showed her another lineup from which she 3 A trial the lead Detective Overton referred to a report concerning the defendants at the Cedar Hotel in Hammond However this information was not presented to the jury 7 identified Hunter as the passenger in the gray car Although she initially thought the other individual was a man she immediately selected Hunter picture because s she identified her by her mouth and she recognized her face On March 31 2006 Detective Overton met with Krystal West and showed her photographic lineups that included the defendant and Hunter West identified both as the individuals she saw at the shopping center on March 10 2006 He then showed the lineups to Shanna Hamilton but she was unable to identify the defendant On April 6 2006 Detective Overton met with Kim Smart to show her the lineups She also identified the defendant as the man who came into Advantage on March 10 2006 The Defense The defendant argued that he was not the perpetrator of the armed robberies but was actually in Centreville Mississippi on March 10 and 29 2006 He testified at trial that he lived with his adoptive father Pastor Arthur Mattire in Hammond until he was fifteen years old at which time he moved to Centreville to be with his mother He and his girlfriend Chaquetta Stinson 4 testified that on March 10 2006 they were together at the house they shared in Centreville It was an average day for them hanging out and working on cars in the yard The defendant left the house around lunchtime to get something to eat and Stinson specifically recalled that they planned her birthday party that day Stinson and the defendant recalled being together Similarly on March 29 2006 They did some chores around the house the defendant left to get something to eat and then he met his friend Eric Ross to work on Ross car in the yard until s approximately 00 m 4 p The defendant then took Stinson to her mother house and returned to s the home in Centreville The defendant was arrested in Hammond later that night SEricson record her 4 spelle her name spelled Shaquita ti the Elsewhere nin Ross wasd listedname isfor the record for the first time at the sentencing hearing as an alibi witness but did not testify at trial The defendant claimed that Ross could not be at trial because a relative ofRoss had died the night before 1 f He explained that he came to Hammond to visit his father and to see his longtime friend Tara Hunter He claimed that he had never been to Denham Springs or Livingston Parish before March 29 2006 The defendant father testified that the defendant had been living in s Mississippi since he was fifteen years old and because of that he could not have committed the crimes in Louisiana on March 10 and 29 2006 However on cross examination he admitted that he did not see the defendant on either of the dates at issue and did not know where the defendant actually was on those days Tammy West the owner of Tammy Sweet Shop in Centreville testified that on March 10 s 2006 around noon the defendant came into her restaurant to purchase lunch She said that in March 2006 the defendant visited her business daily but on cross examination she admitted that she was only asked to testify a few weeks prior to trial and until then had never told anyone that she saw the defendant on March 10 2006 four years earlier Additionally on cross examination Stinson admitted that she never told anyone that the defendant was with her on March 10 2006 because she didn tfeel I had the need to tell anyone She also admitted that there were days when she did not know where the defendant was ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The defendant alleges nine specific assignments of error as follows 1 The defendant sarrest which was based on old warrants which were void was unconstitutional 2 The photographic lineup identification used by the victims to identify the defendant was not based on any information retrieved from any of the victims and the lineup was conducted after the defendant was wrongfully arrested and illegally detained 3 The bank photographs used to identify the defendant were unreliable as they were dated July 22 2002 and the acts the defendant is alleged to have committed occurred on March 10 2006 and March 29 2006 4 The jury selection process requirements for due process 9 was conducted in violation of the 5 The improperly close relationship between the presiding judge and certain jurors was a violation of the defendant right to a fair and s impartial jury 6 Batson exercised challenges to jurors based on The State race in violation of 7 The trial court failed tocaserect a verdict for the defendant at the conclusion of the State di s 8 The second jury venire should have been unconstitutional because it contained tales jurors 9 The defendant dismissed as was denied a fair trial because of the misconduct of the prosecutor prior to and during the trial citing the following incidents a The State failed to provide the defendant with essential discovery from the State investigation s b The State allowed destroyed potentially exonerating evidence to be c Misconduct by the prosecutor during opening statements by using precluded objections by to the jury which a videotape presentationthe defense explaining the law d he referred to the black femaleduring closing arguments when Misconduct by the prosecutor codefendant as that fat black e woman court the tone and expression as if it were an epithet The trial using to occur in the improperly allowedtrial that suggestive activities courtroom during unduly unfairly prejudiced the jury against the defendant f Officers were allowed to visibly display deadly weapons in the courtroom defendant improperly suggesting the dangerousness of the g During the defendant officers were allowed to bring into strial the courtroom other unrelated defendants who were visibly handcuffed shackled and dressed in prison uniforms ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE In his first assignment of error the defendant contends that his arrest which was allegedly based on old warrants that were void was unconstitutional In support of his position he relies upon the United States Fifth Circuit Court of s Appeal decision in Moffett v Wainwri ht 512 F 2d 496 5th Cir 1 975 Specifically the defendant contends that t he gross violation of legal processes g roc his case where he was held on void warrants can be analogized to the situa Offett M However the defendant fails to cite any evidence that his arrest was based on warrants which were old 10 in to suppo the clam PP rt or void Moreover after a careful review of the record we find no basis in the record to support the s defendant claim that his arrest was based on warrants that were old and void and thus that his arrest was unconstitutional The record reveals that the defendant raised this issue in the trial court during argument on his motion to suppress the photographic lineups In an oral motion which the trial court immediately denied the defendant alleged that there was no probable cause to arrest him The defendant merely argued to the trial court that he had been arrested on a traffic related charge to which he alleged he had previously pled guilty and paid a fine In his brief to this court the defendant sets forth that at approximately 9 30 M P on March 29 2006 Hammond police received a call from the Cedar Motel that suspicious subjects ultimately arrested there were hanging around the hotel stairs and that he was on some outstanding warrants As support the defendant cites the Hammond Police Department report from the incident which was not introduced into evidence at trial The report which was provided by the State in discovery states that police officers responding to the Cedar Motel determined that the defendant had five outstanding warrants forhis arrest Notably these warrants are not included in the record before us Pursuant to Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 212 an 4 argument on a specification or assignment oferror in a brief shall include a suitable reference by volume and page to the place in the record which contains the basis for the alleged error The court may disregard the argument on that error in the event suitable reference to the record is not made In the instant case the defendant has only made an unsupported bare assertion that the warrants were void or old and cites no evidence on appeal to support or establish that the warrants or 6 W note that while the defendant and Hunter the suspicious subjects were both questioned at the Cedar Motel only the defendant was arrested based upon the outstanding The 7 police report does not specify the charges or dates on the outstanding warrants warrants 11 his arrest were defective in any way Further the defendant did not timely file a motion to suppress or quash his arrest on this basis Accordingly we find that the s defendant first assignment of error is not properly before this court However even if this issue were properly before this court we find that the s defendant arrest based on allegedly old or void warrants is not analogous to Moffett as he contends In Moffett the State conceded that the defendant arrest s for vagrancy was a sham and only a pretext by which the arresting officer intended to pursue his investigation into the defendant possible connections with recent s armed robberies Moffett 512 F 2d at 501 processes in Moffett included The gross violation of legal an acknowledgement by the arresting officer that no probable cause existed to believe that Moffett had in fact violated the vagrancy statute the sole purpose of the arrest was to continue the investigation of Moffett Moffett was held on a huge bond denied access to a telephone denied visitors and eventually told the next morning that he would be able to make a telephone call only after his questioning was completed Moffett 512 F 2d at 504 None of these enumerated violations of legal processes are alleged to exist in the present case In the instant matter the defendant was arrested on outstanding warrants which while alleged to be old and void are not alleged or shown to be a pretext for the police to investigate his involvement in the March 10 and 29 2006 armed robberies The warrant for the defendant arrest for the armed robbery and s carjacking of Cathy Gill was prepared on March 30 2006 i the day after his e arrest on the outstanding warrants Further unlike the defendant in Moffett the defendant in the instant case does not contend nor does the record show any In x addition to the extent that the defendant may be arguing on appeal that no probable cause existed for his arrest we note that this issue was specifically argued to the trial court at the hearing on the motion to suppress the photographic lineups and the trial court denied the s defendant motion alleging there was no probable cause The defendant was subsequently tried by ajury and convicted as charged Therefore the issue of probable cause for his arrest is moot See State v Johnson 604 So 2d 685 693 La App 1st Cir 1992 writ denied 610 So 2d 795 a I 1993 12 mistreatment subsequent to his arrest Thus on the record before us we are unable to find that the s defendant arrest the on outstanding warrants was unconstitutional This assignment of error is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO In his second assignment of error the defendant contends that the photographic lineup that the victims used to identify him was not based on any information retrieved from any of those same victims and that the lineup was conducted after he was wrongfully arrested and illegally detained He argues that none of the witnesses in the instant case were able to provide a sufficient description of the perpetrator in order to reliably identify him As noted above in our disposition of defendant first assignment of error s we considered and rejected the defendant assertion that his s unconstitutional given the record before us arrest was The defendant has again failed to show by appropriate citation to the record how he was otherwise wrongfully arrested and illegally detained Accordingly pursuant to Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 212 we pretermit further discussion of the 4 issue of the legality of the defendant arrest and will now consider only the s arguments properly urged in this assignment of error The defendant made a motion to suppress identifications which was denied after a hearing the photographic lineup When a trial court denies a motion to suppress factual and credibility determinations should not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse ofthe trial court discretion i unless such ruling is s e not supported by the evidence See State v Green 94 0887 La 5 655 So 95 22 9 I addition to the absence of any evidence herein as to the dates of the warrants now challenged by the defendant we also note that an arrest based upon an old warrant is not in itself unconstitutional An arrest warrant remains in effect until executed and does not become stale with the passage of time See LSAC art 205 State v Romar 20072140 La P Cr 08 1 7985 So 2d 722 727 per curiam 13 2d 272 280 81 However a trial court legal findings are subject to a de novo s standard of review See State v Hunt 2009 1589 La 12 25 So 3d 746 09 1 751 A defendant seeking to suppress an identification must show that the identification itself was misidentification suggestive and that there was a likelihood of as a result of the identification procedure State v Prudholm 446 So 2d 729 738 La 1984 Manson v Brathwaite 432 U 98 97 S Ct 2243 53 S L Ed 2d 140 1977 An identification procedure is unduly suggestive if during the procedure the witness attention is focused s Robinson 386 So 2d 1374 1377 La 1 980 complains that the identifications on the defendant State v In this case while the defendant were based on unduly suggestive lineups he provides no basis for such claim Furthermore the record does not indicate anything suggestive in the lineup preparation or identification procedure The s defendant main complaint is that the photographic lineup used by the victims to identify him was not based on information retrieved from any of those same victims particularly a facial description of the perpetrator However the defendant has not cited nor do we find any requirement that the victim of a crime describe a suspect in order for that suspect to be included in a photographic lineup At the motion tosuppress hearing Detective Woody Overton testified concerning how the photographic lineup was developed He investigated the s Kean robbery on March 10 When he heard about the robberies on March 29 he became suspicious that the same persons were involved in all three incidents When a lead came in from Hammond that evening he was able to get the s defendant name He testified that the defendant and codefendant who were located at the Cedar Motel in Hammond fit the description of the suspects in a BOLO that had been issued earlier that day after the Baker and Gill robberies Detective Overton developed a photographic lineup which he then showed to 14 several witnesses over the next few days Of the five people to whom he showed the lineup four of them identified the defendant In Manson the court set forth five factors to be used in determining whether an identification was reliable 1 the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime 2 the witness degree of attention 3 the s accuracy ofthe witness prior description ofthe criminal 4 the level ofcertainty s demonstrated at the confrontation and 5 the time between the crime and the confrontation Manson v Brathwaite 432 U at 114 97 S Ct at 2253 S Applying the Manson factors to the present case we find that the identification procedure did not produce the likelihood of misidentification Each witness who selected the defendant photograph out of the photographic lineup s testified at trial regarding the witness opportunity to view him at the time the s crime was committed and under what circumstances Cathy Gill testified that she was inches away from the defendant as he stood next to her truck Patricia sface Baker testified that she had a tentofifteen minute conversation with the defendant in her driveway Kimberly Smart spoke with the defendant across the counter at Advantage and Krystal West observed the defendant from her car only feet away Only Shanna Hamilton was unable to identify the defendant All of these witnesses including Michael Armentor described the perpetrator as a tall skinny black male and all described the clothing he was wearing In addition while the bank photos do not show faces the photos show individuals wearing clothing similar to the clothing described corroborate the identifications by the witnesses on March 10 2006 and Gill Baker Smart and West were all certain in their identification of the defendant from the photographic lineup presented to them and each identified him at trial as well Finally the length of time between the crime and identification was brief occurred the day after the crimes For Gill and Baker the identification Accordingly we do not find that the 5 1 identification of the defendant from the photographic lineup was unreliable Thus the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the lineup identifications This assignment of error also lacks merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER THREE In his third assignment of error the defendant contends that the bank photographs used to identify him were unreliable because they were dated July 22 2002 while the acts he is alleged to have committed occurred on March 10 2006 The defendant maintains that the photographs were copies that did not clearly identify him and that the State did not show that the original photographs unavailable as required by controlling law were The defendant first contends that the bank photographs from Key Point which were introduced at trial were unreliable because of an incorrect date At trial the State presented the testimony of Amy Welch Key Point vice president s of lending in March 2006 who was also responsible for the bank security and s compliance She was specifically asked to explain why the photographs were dated July 22 2002 when the date on which they were supposed to have been taken was March 10 2006 She testified that while she did not know why that date appeared Key Point did not open the Broadway Place Shopping Center location until 2005 meaning it would have been impossible for the photos to have been taken on July 22 2002 She also explained that Allied Security the bank security s company set the date on the camera She described how she and a technician from Allied Security retrieved the images from the camera and that she only looked at video taken on March 10 2006 She stated that despite the date the pictures 10 We note that the defendant did not make this objection at trial but that codefendant s counsel did and the defendant joined in Pursuant to LSAC art 842 if an objection has P Cr been made when objection has been made by on trialdefendants presumed unlewe the contrary more than appears that theargument one defendant is all the it shall be Accordingly ss will address the defendant s 16 reflected what happened on March 10 2006 The State introduced testimony to explain the discrepancy and the defendant had an opportunity to cross examine the witness concerning the date Further a review of the record shows that there was never a challenge to the authenticity of the images The witness testified that it would have been impossible for the camera to record on July 22 2002 that the date had to be set manually and that she had only retrieved images recorded on March 10 2006 Considering this testimony we do not find that the bank photographs used to identify the defendant were unreliable due to the discrepancy regarding the date In any event the challenge on this basis to the photos and the images depicted therein used for identification of the defendant goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility See State v Williams 362 So 2d 530 533 La 1978 The defendant also points out that the photographs introduced at trial were copies that did not clearly identify him There was no dispute at trial that the photos did not clearly identify the faces of the people appearing therein However the photos do depict a black male and black female together allegedly at the Broadway Place Shopping Center on March 10 2006 There was also testimony from Smart West Hamilton and Armentor regarding the defendant and s codefendant appearance and presence at the shopping center on that date which corroborated the bank photographs Considering the other evidence identifying the defendant as the perpetrator of the March 1 0 2006 armed robbery at Kean we do s not find that the trial court erred in admitting photographs which did not clearly identify the defendant The defendant also alleges that the State did not show that the original Photographs were unavailable as required by controlling law With respect to that claim Welch testified that the images captured by the camera were recorded to a digital video recorder DVR on a hard drive 17 She burned the images from the DVR onto a CD which she then gave to the police Upon hearing this testimony counsel for the codefendant moved for a mistrial on the grounds that the prosecutor had only provided the defense with printed paper images and not the CD Counsel for the codefendant argued that if he had access to the digital images he might have been able to enlarge them and see the faces of the persons thereby exonerating his client After hearing arguments the trial court denied the motion for mistrial In support of his argument that the State did not show that the original photos were unavailable the defendant cites cases which addressed former LSA S 436 R 15 a broad best evidence rule that no longer exists The repeal of this statute and the adoption of the Code of Evidence resulted in the demise of any broad best evidence rule of exclusion of evidence LSAC Chapter 10 E Introductory Note p 645 West 2006 Prior to its repeal former LSA R S 436 15 provided that t best evidence which from the nature of the case must he be supposed to exist and which is within a party control must be produced s See State v Francis 597 So 2d 55 59 La App 1st Cir 1992 The current Louisiana Code of Evidence provides that t prove the content of a writing o recording or photograph the original writing recording or photograph is required except as otherwise provided by this Code or other legislation LSAC art E 1002 In the present case Welch testified that the camera equipment could not zoom and did not have the capability to expand photos to a size that would show facial features She stated that the images on paper introduced at trial were the best images that she could provide Photographs which illustrate or shed light upon any fact or issue in the case or are relevant to describe the person place or thing depicted are generally admissible See State v Jones 593 So 2d 1301 1308 La App 1 st Cir 1991 18 writ denied 620 So 2d 868 La 1993 Absent a further showing the defendant s argument that the original CD should have been produced fails There is no allegation that the State acted in bad faith in not producing the CD nor has the defendant shown any prejudice as a result of the State furnishing of the s photographs alone Under these circumstances a proper foundation was presented for the admissibility of the paper images from the bank camera and they were properly admitted at trial This assignment of error is without merit ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS FOUR FIVE SIX AND EIGHT JURY SELECTION In his fourth assignment of error the defendant contends that the jury selection process was conducted in violation of the requirement for due process and in his eighth assignment of error he contends that the second jury venire should have been dismissed as unconstitutional because it contained tales jurors However the defendant brief fails to include any argument regarding these s assignments of error Accordingly under Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 2 12 these 4 assignments of error are considered abandoned The s defendant other arguments concerning errors in the jury selection process are discussed in assignments of error numbers S and 6 JudgeJuror Relationship In his fifth assignment of error the defendant alleges that an improperly close relationship between the trial judge and certain jurors deprived him of his m right to a fair and impartial jury and that his challenges for cause to these jurors should have been granted Specifically the defendant complains about juror June Olah who was a friend of the trial judge and juror Bryan Taylor the trial judge s first cousin and close friend The defendant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges at the time the challenges for cause to Olah and Taylor were denied 19 Both served on the jury and Taylor served as foreman An accused in a criminal case is constitutionally entitled to a full and complete voir dire examination and to the exercise of Const art I A 17 peremptory challenges La The purpose of voir dire examination is to determine prospective jurors qualifications by discovering bases for intelligent testing their competency and impartiality and exercise of cause and peremptory challenges State v Burton 464 So 2d 421 425 La App 1 st Cir writ denied 468 So 2d 570 La 1985 A trial court is accorded great discretion in determining whether to seat or reject a juror for cause and such rulings will not be disturbed unless a review of the voir dire as a whole indicates an abuse of that discretion A challenge for cause should be granted even when a prospective juror declares his ability to remain impartial if the juror responses as a whole reveal facts from s which bias prejudice or inability to render judgment according to law may be reasonably implied State v Martin 558 So 2d 654 658 La App 1st Cir writ denied 564 So 2d 318 La 1990 However a trial court ruling s g n a motion to strike jurors for cause is afforded broad discretion because of the court ability to s get a firstperson impression of prospective jurors during voir dire Stagy Brown 20051676 La App 1st Cir 5 935 So 2d 211 214 writ denied 06 2006 1586 La 1 948 So 2d 121 07 8 Prejudice is presumed when a trial court erroneously denies a challenge for cause and the defendant ultimately because an exhausts his erroneous ruling depriving violates his substantial rights peremptory challenges an accused of a and constitutes reversible 2812 La 10 859 So 2d 649 651 52 03 21 This is peremptory challenge g error State v Kan 2002 To prove there has been an error warranting reversal of a conviction a defendant need only show 1 the trial s court erroneous denial of a challenge for cause and 2 the use of all of his peremptory challenges See K ang 859 So 2d at 652 Since the defendant in this 20 case exhausted all of his peremptory challenges we need only consider the issue of whether the trial judge erroneously denied his challenges for cause to Olah and Taylor Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 797 provides in pertinent part The state or the defendant the ground that 2 may challenge a juror for cause on The juror is not impartial whatever the cause of his partiality An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror if he declares and the court is satisfied thatevidence an impartial verdict according to the law and he can render the 3 The relationship whether by blood marriage or enmity between the juror and the defendant the person injured by the offense the district employment friendship attorney or defense counsel is su ch that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence t he juror in arriving at a verdict Juror June Olah The defendant cause of June Olah argues that the trial court erred in denying his challenge for Olah a retired teacher who was married and the mother of two adult children indicated that she knew the trial judge and the judge acknowledged that he knew her and her family The judge then questioned her Court Now the fact that we know one another Ms Olah would that affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this trial Olah No Court m I a neutral guy I don teven know the facts Olah Me too Court So you can listen to the evidence and make a decision Olah Right Olah also infonned the court that she was the victim of a crime as a rental house she owned was destroyed when a methamphetamine lab inside of it blew up P 21 The persons responsible were prosecuted The trial judge asked if that would affect her ability to be fair and impartial to the defendants in the instant case or would it have any bearing she said it would not Defense counsel later questioned her Defense counsel Alright The fact that you gone through that the ve rental house incident and that you know the Judge you think you can be fair and impartial on a case involving armed robbery Olah Yes Defense counsel The fact that that happened to you and that you know the Judge that won affect you at all t Olah No Defense counsel It will not Olah No The defendant challenged Olah for cause on the grounds that she knew the trial judge well and that she was the victim of a crime asserting that those factors would be difficult to overcome and would prevent her from acting in a fair and impartial manner Counsel for codefendant Hunter did not join in the challenge for cause and the State argued that Olah could be fair The trial court denied the challenge observing I think that she can be fair and impartial too Juror Bryan Taylor The defendant also argues that the trial court erred in denying the challenge for cause against Bryan Taylor The trial judge noted that he and Taylor are very close friends as well as first cousins The judge then questioned Taylor Court And so I just want to make sure that you guys understand Again I don tknow the facts of the case but the fact that I sitting as the m Judge would that affect your ability to be fair and impartial Bryan in this case Taylor No no Court And in fact just so that we know if they come back and the State has not proven their case and you deem in your mind that they are not guilty can you vote not guilty 22 Taylor Yes Court And if they come back and they proven their case can you ve vote guilty Taylor Yes Defense counsel also questioned him as follows Defense counsel The fact that you related to the Judge and re apparently you are very close friend sic would that affect your judgment or your ability to be fair and impartial Taylor No Defense counsel It would not okay Thank you If in fact there is l wel let me finish talking if in fact there is a scenario where the evidence presented by the Prosecutor is not sufficient in your mind that there a s reasonable doubt in your mind you think you can still vote not guilty on Mr s Mattire matter Taylor Yes if it reasonable doubt yes s Defense counsel Taylor m I sorry If it reasonable doubt s The defendant challenged Taylor for cause on the grounds that he was a cousin to the judge explaining I think most cousins are and especially close cousins are more inclined to want to do what the serving Judge that he will perceive that the serving Judge might want to do Again codefendant Hunter s counsel did not join the challenge for cause and the State argued that Taylor could be fair and impartial The trial judge denied the challenge stating that In all due respect to your argument Mr Miller I would allow him to remain I think that he could be fair and impartial As sole legal support for his argument the defendant cites State v Brossette 931036 La App 3rd Cir 3 634 So 2d 1309 writ denied 940802 La 94 2 94 24 6 640 So 2d 1344 In Brossette the trial judge excused a juror near the end of trial over the defendant objection once the juror discovered that her s supervisor at work was going to be a character witness for the defense The juror 23 informed the court that she was scared to remain on the jury and that she felt her job would be in jeopardy if her supervisor did not agree with her vote Brossette 634 So 2d at 1319 The Third Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the trial court s decision to excuse that juror for cause finding that she could have had trouble remaining impartial due to employment concerns and that her relationship with the supervisorwitness could have affected her deliberations and vote Brossette 634 So 2d at 1320 The defendant argues by analogy that in the instant case the trial court should have excused Olah and Taylor due to their close relationships with the judge Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 797 does not include judges 3 in the category of persons that by virtue of their relationship to a potential juror entitle a party to challenge that juror for cause because it would be reasonable to conclude that the relationship would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict The defendant argument also presupposes that the trial judge was not a neutral s party in the instant case Unlike the parties attorneys or witnesses the trial judge has no stake in the outcome of the case and voices no opinion on the defendant s guilt or innocence in a jury trial Further the mere fact that a juror is related to a participant in the case does not disqualify the juror from service The party challenging the juror must also show that the relationship could influence the juror in arriving at a verdict See State v McIntyre 381 So 2d 408 410 La cent denied 449 U 871 101 S Ct 209 66 L Ed 2d 90 1980 S It is well settled that the trial judge has broad discretion in ruling on a challenge for cause and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse ofthat discretion State v Smith 437 So 2d 802 805 La 1983 During voir dire examination the judge and defense counsel questioned Olah and Taylor concerning their relationships to the trial judge and whether such relationships would affect their ability to serve as impartial jurors After carefully reviewing the 24 record in this case we are satisfied that the testimony on voir dire taken as a whole supports the trial court conclusion that Olah and Taylor were competent to s serve as jurors Accordingly the trial judge did not err in denying the defendant s challenges for cause This assignment of error also lacks merit Batson Challenges In his sixth assignment of error the defendant contends that the State exercised challenges to jurors based on race in violation of Batson v Kentuck 476 U 79 106 S Ct 1712 90 L 69 1986 S 2d Ed Specifically the defendant objects to the State challenges to potential jurors Jennifer Huong an Asian s American and Susan Fabre an African American In Batson the Supreme Court adopted a threestep analysis to determine whether the constitutional rights of a defendant or prospective jurors have been infringed by impermissible discriminatory practices First the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race Second if the requisite showing has been made the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race neutral explanation for striking the jurors in question Finally the trial court must determine whether the defendant has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination State v Handon 2006 0131 La App 1st Cir 12 952 So 2d 53 56 06 28 In addition LSAC art 795 provides in pertinent part P Cr C No peremptory challenge made by the state or the defendant shall be based solely upon the race or gender of the juror If an objection is made that the state or defense has excluded a juror solely on the basis of race or gender and a prima facie case supporting that objection is made by the objecting parry the court may demand a satisfactory race or gender neutral reason for the exercise of the challenge voir dire examination of thethat such reason is apparent unless the court is satisfied from the juror Such demand and In r the trial court the defense also raised a Batson challenge to the State striking of s potential juror Donald Scott an African American man However on appeal the defendant only raises objections regarding Huong and Fabre 25 disclosure if required by the court shall be made outside of the hearing of any j uror or prospective juror D The court shall allow to stand each peremptory challenge exercised for a race or gender neutral reason either apparent from the examination or disclosed by counsel when required by the court The provisions of Paragraph C and this Paragraph shall not apply when both the state and the defense have exercised a challenge against the same juror E The court shall allow to stand each peremptory challenge for which a satisfactory racially neutral or gender neutral reason is given Those jurors who have been peremptorily challenged and for whom no satisfactory racially neutral or gender neutral reason is apparent or given may be ordered returned toitthe panel or the court may take such other corrective action deems as appropriate under the circumstances The court shall make specific findings regarding each such challenge To establish a prima facie case the defendant must show 1 the s prosecutor challenge was directed at a member of a cognizable group 2 the challenge was peremptory rather than for cause and 3 relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor struck the venireperson on account of his being a member of that cognizable group Batson 476 U at 96 S 106 S Ct at 1723 Without an inference that the prospective jurors were stricken because they are members ofthe targeted group the defendant is unable to make a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination and his Batson challenge expires at the threshold State v S arks 880017 La 5 68 So 3d 435 46869 cert 11 11 denied sub nom El Mumit v Louisiana S U 132 S Ct 1794 182 L Ed 2d 621 2012 The State in presenting race neutral reasons for its excusal of prospective jurors need not present an explanation that is persuasive or even plausible unless discriminatory intent is inherent in the State explanation after review of the s a entire record the reason offered will be deemed race neutral A reviewing court owes the trial court evaluations of discriminatory intent great deference and s 26 should not reverse them unless they are clearly erroneous Handon 952 So 2d at x 1 In the instant case the defendant first raised a Batson objection to the State s peremptory challenge to Jennifer Huong an Asian American woman because she was a minority The State responded that Huong was struck because she was only in the courthouse to pay a ticket when she was selected as a tales juror In addition the State felt that she did not understand what was going on in the courtroom or understand the criminal system at all The trial court finding that the State set forth a valid reason to dismiss Huong overruled the Batson challenge Thereafter the defense asked the State to articulate a basis for exercising a peremptory challenge to Susan Fabre an African American woman The State responded that Fabre was struck because of an answer she gave which indicated that she would hold the State to a higher standard if the State could not produce the gun used in the armed robberies In addition Fabre was formerly married to a prosecutor and she indicated that she and her ex husband frequently disagreed which gave the State the impression that she might side with the defense Defense counsel countered that there were only two African Americans presented for jury selection that day and that he did not interpret Fabre answer about her ex s husband the same way as the State The trial court overruled the Batson challenge finding that the State offered a genderneutral race neutral reason for dismissing her On review we find the defense failed to make a primafacie showing that the prosecutor had exercised the peremptory challenges on the basis of race The defense also failed to produce evidence sufficient to permit the trial court to draw an inference that discrimination had occurred Further even if the defendant had made the requisite prima facie showing that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race the State articulated legitimate raceneutral 27 explanations for striking the minority jurors at issue Accordingly we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in its denial of the defendant Batson s challenges regarding prospective jurors Huong and Fabre This assignment of error is also without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER SEVEN In his seventh assignment of error the defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in his favor at the conclusion of the State case s In particular he argues that there was no probable cause to arrest or hold him that the identification evidence was unreliable and that there was no evidence linking him to the armed robberies and carjacking We construe this assignment of error as an allegation of insufficient evidence to support the convictions and will treat it accordingly 12 As an initial matter we note that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for a motion for a directed verdict Rather LSA C art 778 provides P Cr for a motion for a judgment of acquittal but only in a bench trial It is well settled that the trial court has no authority to grant a directed verdict in a criminal jury trial LSA C art 778 State v Parfait 96 1814 La App 1st Cir 5 693 P Cr 97 9 So 2d 1232 1242 writ denied 971347 La 10 703 So 2d 20 97 31 The standard of review for the sufficiency of evidence to uphold a conviction is whether or not viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could conclude that the State proved the essential elements of the crime and the defendant identity beyond a reasonable s doubt Jackson v Virginia 443 U 307 319 99 S Ct 2781 2789 61 L Ed 2d S 560 1979 See also LSAC art 821 State v Lofton 96 1429 La App 1 st P Cr 12 With respect to the argument that there was no probable cause to arrest him as noted previously the defendant has not raised proper factual or legal arguments concerning this issue Indeed he does not even indicate what arrest he is challenging by this assertion the arrest on March 29 2006 for the outstanding warrants or the subsequent arrest for the crimes at issue in this case Thus pursuant to Uniform Rules Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 2 12 we consider 4 this particular argument abandoned 28 Cir 3 691 So 2d 1365 1368 writ denied 97 1124 La 10 701 So 97 27 97 17 2d 1331 This standard of review in particular the requirement that the evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution obliges the reviewing court to defer to the actual trier of fact rational credibility calls evidence s weighing and inference drawing See State v Mussall 523 So 2d 1305 1308 11 La 1988 The Jackson standard of review incorporated in Article 821 is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence both direct and circumstantial for reasonable doubt So 2d 76 79 State y Davis 20002685 La App 1st Cir 11 818 01 9 S When analyzing circumstantial evidence LSA R 438 15 provides that the factfinder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence State v Patorno 2001 2585 La App 1 st Cir 02 21 6 822 So 2d 141 1 44 The defendant does not contest the State evidence showing that the crimes s alleged in this case actually occurred Instead he challenges the issue of his identification as the perpetrator Where the key issue is the defendant identity as s the perpetrator of the crime rather than whether or not the crime was committed the State is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification State v Johnson 992114 La App 1st Cir 12 800 So 2d 886 888 writ 00 18 denied 2001 0197 La 12 802 So 01 7 2d 641 Positive identification by only one witness may be sufficient to support a conviction State v Davis 2001 3033 La App 1st Cir 6 822 So 2d 161 163 Moreover it is the factfinder who 02 21 weighs the respective credibilities of the witnesses and this court generally will not second guess those determinations State v Hughes 2005 0992 La 06 29 11 943 So 2d 1047 1051 Armed robbery is defined as the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another by use of force or intimidation while armed with a dangerous weapon LSAR S 29 A 64 14 Carjacking is defined as the intentional taking of a motor vehicle as defined in R 32 belonging to another person in the presence of that S1 40 person or in the presence of a passenger or any other person in lawful possession of the motor vehicle by the use of force or intimidation LSAR 14 S 64 A 2 With respect to the March 10 2006 armed robbery at Kean Kimberly s Smart and Krystal West each identified the defendant from a photographic lineup and again at trial as the person they saw in the area immediately prior to the robbery They testified concerning how he walked into Advantage and asked to use the restroom but immediately left West observed him and the codefendant looking into store windows shortly thereafter and Smart testified that she saw him enter and exit Kean Shanna Hamilton and Michael Armentor who were unable s to identify the defendant testified at trial regarding the perpetrator clothing and s build as well as his actions at Kean on the date in question Hamilton testified at s trial that the perpetrator walked in and asked to use the restroom then came out and put a gun in her face and demanded that she give him money which she did Additionally bank photographs were introduced at trial which the State contended were depictions of the defendant and codefendant at the Broadway Place Shopping Center on the same date of the robbery at Kean s With respect to the March 29 2006 armed robbery of Patricia Baker Baker identified the defendant from a photographic lineup and again at trial She testified at trial concerning her encounter with the defendant and described how he put a gun in her face and demanded her keys and purse With respect to the armed robbery and carjacking of Cathy Gill on March 29 2006 Gill identified the defendant from a photographic lineup and again at trial She testified that the defendant held a gun to her face while demanding her keys and purse She was able to escape but the defendant drove away in her truck Finally the defendant testified at trial that he did not commit the crimes 30 because he was in Mississippi at the time they testified on his behalf occurred Three alibi witnesses In addition the defendant argued extensively to the jury through cross examination and in closing arguments that the witnesses who identified him in the photographic lineups were mistaken and that the defendant could not have been the perpetrator of the armed robberies on March 10 and March 29 2006 However it was the factfinder srole to evaluate the defendant sclaim of innocence and decide whether the defendant theory of innocence was credible s including whether there was any reasonable probability of misidentification Where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses the matter is one of the weight of the evidence not its sufficiency State v Thomas 589 So 2d 555 570 La App 1 st Cir 1991 As the trier of fact a jury is free to accept or reject in whole or in part the testimony of any witness State v Richardson 459 So 2d 31 38 La App 1st Cir 1984 Because a determination of the weight of the evidence is a question of fact this court has no appellate jurisdiction to review it in appeals of criminal State v Gordon 2001 0236 La App 1st Cir 2 809 So 2d 549 02 15 cases 552 writ denied 20042438 La 6 904 05 24 2d So 733 On appeal this court will not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence to overturn a s jury determination of guilt See State v Hendon 94 0516 La App 1st Cir 95 7 4 654 So 2d 447 450 Thus the reviewing court is not permitted to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence See State v Bur e 515 So 2d 494 505 La App 1 st Cir 1987 writ denied 532 So 2d 112 La 1988 As a reviewing court we are not empowered to substitute our idea of what the verdict should be for that of the jury Further the appellate court is constitutionally precluded from acting as a thirteenth juror in assessing what weight to give evidence in criminal cases that 31 determination rests solely on the sound discretion of the trier of fact Mitchell 993342 La 10 772 So 00 17 State v 2d 78 83 Moreover the fact that the record contains evidence that conflicts with the trier of fact verdict does not s render the evidence accepted by the trier of fact insufficient See State y Azema 633 So 2d 723 727 La App 1st Cir 1993 writ denied 940141 La 4 94 29 637 So 2d 460 In the instant case the guilty verdicts returned by the jury indicate that it accepted the State evidence and rejected the defendant theory of innocence s s See State v Andrews 940842 La App 1st Cir 5 655 So 2d 448 453 We 95 cannot say that the jury determination was irrational under the facts and s circumstances presented to it So 2d 654 662 See State v Ordodi 2006 0207 La 11 946 06 29 An appellate court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of the jury and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to and rationally rejected by the jury See State v Calloway 20072306 La 1 1 09 21 So 3d 417 418 per curiam Accordingly after a careful review of the record we are convinced viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution that a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of armed robbery and carjacking This assignment of error is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER NINE In his ninth assignment of error the defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial because of the s prosecutor misconduct prior to and during particular the defendant complains that trial In A the State failed to provide him with essential discovery B the State allowed potentially exonerating evidence to be destroyed C the prosecutor used a videotape presentation during his opening 32 statement that explained the law to the jury and precluded any objections by the defense D during closing arguments the prosecutor referred to the black female codefendant as that fat black woman using the tone and expression as if it were an epithet E the trial court improperly allowed unduly suggestive activities to occur in the courtroom during trial that unfairly prejudiced the jury against the defendant F officers were allowed to visibly display deadly weapons in the courtroom improperly suggesting the dangerousness of the defendant and G officers were allowed to bring into the courtroom during the defendant trial s other unrelated defendants who were visibly handcuffed shackled and dressed in prison uniforms The defendant argues that his convictions should be reversed based on the totality of the errors made prior to and during the trial and that the combination of errors made during the defendant arrest and trial represent a violation of the s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause He further contends that when a substantial denial of a constitutional right occurs such as conviction based on an arrest made without probable cause and subsequent illegal detainment the conviction should be reversed We again note that in our consideration of assignment of error number one we addressed the issue of whether the defendant arrest was unconstitutional s based upon his detainment pursuant to allegedly old warrants which were void and concluded that on the evidence presented the arrest was not unconstitutional We further determined that the defendant has abandoned his argument asserting a lack of probable cause for his arrest and that his subsequent detainment was illegal because he has not properly briefed those issues Therefore we do not find that there was a substantial denial of a constitutional right warranting reversal of the s defendant convictions on these bases Secondly while the defendant alleges numerous errors concerning the 33 s prosecutor conduct and other incidents during trial he does not provide any statutory or judicial authority to support his arguments nor does he include the necessary record citations or any supporting argument for this court to properly review these matters In particular other than to include it on the list of errors specified above the defendant does not even reference the following in his brief that the trial court improperly allowed unduly suggestive activities to occur in the courtroom during trial that officers were allowed to display deadly weapons in the courtroom and that officers were allowed to bring unrelated defendants into the courtroom In addition while the defendant contends that the prosecutor made an inappropriate reference to the codefendant during closing arguments he has failed to provide a citation to the record where this comment can be found 13 Further we can only speculate as to what the defendant refers to when he alleges that the State failed to provide him with essential discovery Finally with respect to the prosecutor use of a videotape presentation to s the jury the defendant quotes extensively from the transcript of the parties argument to the trial court about the use of the presentation However again the defendant provides no legal authority to support his position that the use of the videotape presentation during the opening statement was erroneous or prejudicial Under Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 212 we may 4 disregard these arguments as they do not include suitable references to the record and they are not briefed Accordingly we pretermit further consideration of the s defendant broad but unsupported argument that his conviction should be 13 In fact a careful review of the closing argument transcript reveals that no such comment was made The prosecutor made references to Hunter as a heavy set female and a heavyset black female The defendant asked for a mistrial based upon this statement which the trial court denied While we have only a cold transcript to review and therefore cannot judge the tone and expression of the of Hunter providedobserve that this description usedatbytrial prosecutor we do by the witnesses who testified the prosecutor mirrors the descriptions s Hunter counsel added that his impression was that the prosecutor statement was more s descriptive in terms of describing the person physical characteristics as matching the s description given in the police report 34 reversed based on the totality of errors made prior to and during the trial and that a combination of errors made during arrest and trial represent a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause This assignment of error is without merit CONCLUSION For the above and foregoing reasons the defendant convictions and s sentences are affirmed CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 35
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.
