State Of Louisiana VS Curtis Allen Bridges
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 KA 2120 i STATE OF LOUISIANA Q f l l J VERSUS 0 Y2 CURTIS ALLEN BRIDGES J udgment Rendered UN 0 7 2Dt3 On Appeal from the Twenty Judicial District Court Second In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana No 515163 Honorable William J Burris 7udge Presiding Hon Walter P Reed Counsel for Appellee District State of Louisiana Attorney Covington Louisiana Kathryn W Landry Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge Louisiana Lieu T Vo Clark Mandeville Louisiana BEFORE Counsel for Defendant Appellant Curtis Allen Bridges WHIPPLE C McCLENDON J AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ McCLENDON J The defendant Curtis A Bridges was charged by bill of information as amended with aggravated battery count one cruelty to juveniles count two and possession of cocaine count three See LSA 14 LSA 14 S R 34 R 93 S S R and LSA C 967 40 see also La R S 4 A 964 40 Schedule II The defendant pled not guilty on all three counts After a trial by jury he was found guilty on count one of the responsive offense of simple battery a violation of S R 35 LSA 14 and guilty as charged on the two remaining counts The trial court denied the defendant motion for postverdict judgment of acquittal and s motion for new trial On count one the trial court sentenced the defendant to six months imprisonment in parish jail The State filed a habituai offender bill of information to enhance the sentence on count two After adjudicating the defendant a fourth felony offender on count two the trial court imposed twenty five years imprisonment at hard labor to be served without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence Finally on count three the trial court imposed five years imprisonment at hard labor The trial court ordered that the sentences be served concurrently The defendant now appeals challenging as to count two the trial court ruling on the motion for new trial and motion for s postverdict judgment of acquittal and the sufficiency of the evidence For the following reasons we affirm the convictions habitual offender adjudication and sentences STATEMENT OF FACTS At the time of the offense the defendant was living in Slidell with his girlfriend who indicated that she lost her eyesight in 2009 and was considered legally blind and her twelve son D the victim herein identified by old year G initials only pursuant to LSA 46 During the eariy morning hours S W R 1844 of Saturday October 1 2011 the defendant arrived at home and knocked on the The defendant adjudication was based on the following predicate offenses a September 9 s 2003 conviction of purse snatching a September 4 1998 conviction of forgery and a February 18 1993 convidion of theft The defendant stipulated to the allegations in the habitual offender bill of information 2 window as the door was locked with a deadbolt opened the door and they began arguing over The defendant girlfriend s money Specifically the defendant wanted her to return amoney order that he purchased after 00 400 cashing his disability check As the money order was originally purchased to use as a deposit on an apartment in New Orleans where they planned to move unbeknownst to the defendant his girlfriend asked a friend to hold the money order for them to ensure that it would be saved for the intended purpose The defendant became hysterical when his girlfriend refused to give him the money order While they were in their bedroom the defendant began yelling and cursing and ultimately pushed her to the floor The victim heard the commotion and entered the bedroom and observed his mother on the floor The defendant pushed him out of the room and closed the door The victim reopened the door and entered the bedroom At some point the victim attempted to push the defendant away from his mother According to the victim after he pushed the defendant the defendant got angry and chased him into the hallway As the defendant and the victim struggled the s victim mother instructed her sister who was also present in the home to call the police As she complied the defendant took the telephone While they were in the hallway the defendant repeatedly punched D the victim in the face G The defendant continued to confront the victim mother over the money order s and the victim went into the kitchen and grabbed a knife The victim brandished the knife and told the defendant to back away from his mother The defendant grabbed the victim hand and the victim dropped or lost control of the knife As s a result of the defendant sattack the victim sustained cuts to his ear and chest The police ultimately arrived at the home and questioned the occupants ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR In a combined argument to address each assignment of error the defendant contends that the State failed to prove that he acted without justification in his altercation with the victim Thus the defendant argues that the evidence in support of the cruelty conviction is insufficient The juvenile a to 3 defendant claims that the victim admitted to starting the instant physical altercation and to attempting to strike the defendant with a rock in the past The defendant further contends that the victim injuries were not serious s enough to require medicai treatment The defendant argues that the evidence shows that he acted in response to the victim actions The defendant indicates s that his actions should be characterized as either self or discipline defense On the above basis the defendant concludes that the trial court erred in denying his motion for postverdict judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction a Louisiana appellate court is controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v Virginia 443 U 307 319 99 S 2781 S Ct 2789 61 L 560 1979 That standard of appellate review adopted by the 2d Ed legislature in enacting LSA art 821 is whether the evidence when P Cr C viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution was sufFicient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt State v Brown 03 La 4 907 So 0897 05 12 2d 1 18 cert denied 547 U 1022 126 S 1569 164 L 305 2006 The S Ct 2d Ed Jackson standard of review is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence both direct and circumstantial for reasonable doubt When analyzing circumstantial evidence LSA 15 provides that in order to convict the S R 438 trier of fact must be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence State v Graham 02 La 1 Cir 2 1492 App 03 14 845 So 416 420 When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the trier 2d of fact 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 2d App La 1 Cir writ denied 514 So 126 La 1987 2d z While all three offenses arose from the instant incident the defendant is only contesting the cruelty to a juvenile conviction Thus herein the facts will be relayed only to the extent that they relate to the elements of the challenged offense 4 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 31 38 La 2d App 1 Cir Moreover where there is conflicting testimony about factual 1984 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 Richardson 459 So at 38 A reviewing court is not called upon 2d to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence 1992 State v Smith 600 So 1319 1324 La 2d In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence one witness testimony if believed by the trier of fact is s cient su support for a requisite factual conclusion State v Thomas 05 2210 App La 1 Cir 2d 75 06 9 6 938 So 168 174 writ denied 2403 06 La 07 27 4 955 So 683 2d Cruelty to juveniles is defined in LSA 14 as the intentional S A R 93 1 or criminally negligent mistreatment or neglect by anyone seventeen years of age or older of any child under the age of seventeen whereby unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused to said child Mistreatment as used in this statute is equated with abuse State v Comeaux 319 So 897 899 La 1975 The 2d term intentional as used in LSA 14 refers to general criminal intent to S R 93 mistreat or neglect and does not require specific criminal intent to cause the child unjustifiable pain and suffering App La 1 Cir 1991 State v Morrison 582 So 295 302 2d General criminal intent is present whenever there is specific intent and also when the circumstances indicate that the offender in the ordinary course of human experience must have adverted to the prescribed criminal consequences as reasonably certain to result from his act or failure to act LSA 2 10 14 S R An alternative to proving the defendant had general criminal intent to mistreat or neglect the child thereby causing the child unjustifiable pain and suffering is to prove that the defendant was criminally negligent in his mistreatment or neglect of the child Criminally negligent mistreatment or 5 i neglect of the juvenile exists when although neither specific nor general intent is present there is such disregard of the interest of the juvenile that the sconduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care defendant expected to be maintained by a reasonably carefui person under like circumstances S R 12 LSA 14 State v Booker 02 La 1 Cir 1269 App 03 14 2 839 So 455 459 writ denied 03 La 10 857 So 2d 1145 03 31 2d 476 Criminal negligence is Rather than requiring the essentially negative accused to intend the consequences of his actions criminal negligence is found from the accused gross disregard for the consequences of his actions State s v Small 1i La 10 100 So 797 809 2796 12 16 3d Thus to carry its burden of proof the State must show that defendant either intentionally mistreated or neglected the victim or was criminally negligent in his mistreatment or neglect of the victim The fact that an offender conduct is justifiable although otherwise s criminal shall constitute a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct S R 18 LSA 14 Justification can be claimed when the conduct is reasonable discipline of minors by their parents tutors or teachers LSA S R 4Comeaux 319 So at 899 In a non situation a claim of 18 14 2d homicide defense self requires a dual inquiry first an objective inquiry into whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances and second a subjective inquiry into whether the force used was apparentfy necessary State v Navarre 498 So 249 252 La 1 Cir 1986 2d 53 App Herein the victim mother testified that she and the defendant had been s living together for about two months when the offenses occurred and dated for several months prior to that She confirmed that the defendant previously acted as a mentor to her son but indicated that their relationship began to sufFer when things got serious between she and the defendant After he moved in the defendant would discipline the victim including punishments for misbehavior On the night before the offenses she and the defendant had gone out and consumed a few beers and after they got back home at approximately 1 30 6 m a the defendant briefly left the home again When he returned the altercation ensued in the bedroom At some point the victim and his mother attempted to leave but the defendant prevented them from doing so While they were in the living room the defendant again pushed the victim mother s down to the floor still cursing and demanding the return of his money order The victim testified that before he grabbed the knife the defendant punched him in the face four times After the first blow in the jaw with a balled up fist the victim jumped on the defendant back and the defendant slung him s ofF and punched him again The victim described the blows as painful As to the point when the victim grabbed the knife he specifically testified I hold the knife up in front of ine and I say back away And thaYs when he grabbed my wrist and I dropped it And that when he grabbed it The victim further stated that s he tried to reach for the knife but the defendant grabbed it first and held it in his hand as he again began punching the victim During cross the examination victim denied ever lunging toward the defendant with the knife but responded positively when asked whether he attempted to maintain possession of the knife and wrestled with the defendant over it The victim also responded positively when asked if he sustained the knife injuries as they were wrestling and confirmed that the defendant did not attempt to stab him The victim mother testified that she heard her son screaming as he s continued to struggle with the defendant She began pounding on the wall that separated her residence from her neighbor residence in an attempt to get s someone to call the police Deputy Steven Lang of the St Tammany Parish s Sheriff Office was dispatched to the scene at approximately 4 a and 50 m testified that when he arrived the defendant was rowdy and had slurred speech bloodshot eyes and the scent of alcohol The defendant did not have any visible injuries and did not compiain of any The defendant admitted that there had been a dispute over money but denied having any physical contact with the victim or his mother and did not make any statements about defending himself Deputy Lang observed the victim swollen battered face The victim s 7 I relayed the facts of the incident to the o and photographs were taken of the cer victim who had visibly apparent injuries to his face ear and chest The victim and his mother declined the deputy offer of inedical attention Deputy Lang s memorialized the facts as relayed by the victim in a police report the following evening When asked on cross if he and the defendank had any prior examination altercations the victim responded negatively but confirmed that during a prior argument outdoors he threw a medium rock at the defendant stomach size s The victim also confirmed that he and the defendant wrestled on that occasion and the victim sustained a scratch on his chest The defendant punished the victim after that incident On redirect examination the victim confirmed that the scratch on his chest photographed at the time of this incident was a knife injury from the instant incident and not a result of his prior altercation with the defendant The defendant did not testify or present any defense witnesses A person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and defense in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict S R 21 LSA 14 Louisiana law is unclear as to who has the burden of proving self in a non case See defense homicide State v Freeman 427 So 1161 1163 La 1983 2d In previous cases dealing with this issue we have analyzed the evidence under both standards of review namely whether the defendant proved self by a preponderance defense of the evidence or whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 3 In Freeman 427 So at 1163 the Louisiana Supreme Court indicated in dicta that the 2d defendant in a non case may have the burden of proving self by a homicide defense preponderance of the evidence Several cases decided thereafter have agreed with that view See SWte v Harris D2 La 4 Cir 3 842 So 432 436 State v McClure 2099 App 03 5 2d 37 880 App 34 La 2 Cir 8 793 So 454 457 State v Rainey 98 La 5 Cir Ol 22 2d 0436 App 98 25 11 7ZZ SoZd 1097 1103 writ denied 98 La 5 741 So 28 State v 05 3219 99 7 Zd Perkins 527 So 48 50 La 3 Cir 1988 State v Mason 499 So 551 554 2d App 2d SS 2d App La 2 Cir 1986 State v Barnes 491 So 42 47 La 5 Cir 1986 App 4 Other courts have also utilized this approach and analyzed the evidence under both standards See State v Martin 520 So 1079 1080 La 3 Cir 1987 State v Agnelly 515 2d 81 App 2d So 821 823 La 5 Cir 1987 State v Zeno 469 So 337 340 La 2 Cir writ App 2d App denied 474 So 1303 La 1985 2d 8 I defendant did not act in self See State v Brown 03 La 1 defense 1076 App Cir 12 868 So 775 782 writ denied 04 La 6 876 03 31 2d 84 0269 04 4 2d So 76 State v Willis 591 So 365 370 La 1 Cir 1991 writ 2d 72 App denied 594 So 1316 La 1992 State v Aldridge 450 So 1057 1059 2d 2d 60 La 1 Cir 1984 App Similarly in the instant case we need not decide the issue of who has the burden of proving or disprovir defense because under either standard the gself evidence sufficiently established the defendant did not act in self We defense note that the victim was still twelve years old at the time of the trial Before being subjected to cross the victim clearly indicated that the examination defendant had fuli control over the knife when the victim sustained knife injuries The victim specifically indicated that the defendant grabbed his hand causing him to drop the knife and that the defendant recovered the knife and held it in his hand while punching the victim This was completely consistent with the version of the facts that the victim relayed to the police right after the incident The jurors evidently rejected the defendant argument that his actions were s justified We find that the jurors who had an opportunity to see and hear the witnesses could have reasonably concluded that defendant was the aggressor of the altercation and thus not entitied to a self claim Viewing all the defense evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant sactions were not reasonable under the circumstances Thus when all the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State any rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant sconduct was not in self defense Moreover the defendant cannot avail himself of the justification of reasonable discipline There is no evidence that defendant was the victim s father tutor or teacher Rather the record only establishes that defendant was s G s in D mother live boyfriend Further any rational trier of fact could have concluded that the defendanYs actions did not constitute reasonable discipline 9 Thus the remaining issue is whether defendant had the intent to mistreat G D or was criminally negligent in his mistreatment of D causing unjustifiable G pain or suffering In State v Chacon 03 La 5 Cir 10 860 0446 App 03 28 2d So 151 the defendant was convicted of cruelty to a juvenile It was undisputed that the defendant struck the victim in the left arm Photographs taken two days after the incident showed a large bruise in the shape of a fist on the victim arm s The defendant argued that he did not have the intent to mistreat the victim he was not angry when he hit the victim he only hit the victim twice the victim did not cry and the victim was not thrown off balance by the impact of the punches The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that the fact that the victim did not cry or was not thrown off balance from the force of the blows was not determinative of whether the victim experienced unjustifiable pain and suffering The court went on to note that a bruise of the severity and magnitude exhibited by the photographs clearly demonstrates that unjustifiable pain and suffering were inflicted upon the victim Chacon 860 So at 154 2d The court then held that the defendant either intentionally mistreated or was criminally negligent in his mistreatment of the victim when he chose to punch the eight with such force that it left a fist bruise old year shaped In State v Swan 544 So 1204 La 1 Cir 1989 the trial court 2d App convicted the defendant of cruelty to juveniles and this court upheld the conviction on appeal On appeal defense counsel alleged that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction insofar as counsel examined photographs of the victims with a magnifying glass and detected only a tiny mark on the forehead on one of the boys Swan 544 So at 1207 2d However the trial court accepted the victims testimony that the defendant had pursued them in his car fired shots at them stopped them beaten both of them and forced them to return to his house Id A victim need not seek medical treatment for the court to find he endured unjustifiable pain and suffering State v Sedlock 04 La App 3d Cir 564 04 29 9 882 So 1278 1284 writ denied 04 La 2 894 So 2d 2710 05 25 2d 10 1131 Herein even before the victim grabbed the knife and sustained further injuries the defendant age 44 at the time of t offenses intentionally and e repeatedly punched the victim with a closed fist The force of the blows left visible swelling and bruising on D face D testified that the blows were s G G painful Based on the trial testimony and severity and magnitude of the injuries exhibited by the photographs the evidence clearly demonstrates that unjustifiable pain and suffering were intentionally inflicted upon D Thus we G cannot say that the jury determination was irrational under the facts and s circumstances to presented See State v Ordodi them 0207 06 La 06 29 11 946 So 654 662 2d Furthermore 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 trier of fact See Calloway 07 La 1 1 So 417 418 per curiam 2306 09 21 3d State v Based on a thorough review of the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution we are convinced that any rational trier of fact could have concluded the State presented sufficient evidence to prove each element of the offense of cruelty to a juvenile beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence Thus the assignments of error lack merit CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons we affirm the defendant convictions habitual s offender adjudication and sentences CONVICTIONS HABITUAL OFFENDER SENTENCES 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.
