State Of Louisiana VS Cornell Elliot Chambers
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2013 KA 0428 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS CARNELL ELLIOT CHAMBERS j 4 v On Appeal from the 32nd Judicial District Court Parish of Terrebonne Louisiana Docket No 618 Division B 434 Honorable ohn R Walker 7udge Presiding 7oseph L Waitz r Attorneys for Appellee District Attorney State of Louisiana Ellen D Doskey Assistant District Attorney LA Houma Bertha M Hillman Louisiana Appellate Project Thibodaux LA Attorney for Appellant Defendant Carnell Elliot Chambers BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND DRAKE 7J Judgmentrendered LrhC t L t V o 4 Z t3 2 i PARRO J The defendant Carnell Elliot Chambers was charged by felony bill of information with battery of a correctional facility employee a violation of LSA S R 5 34 14 He pled not guilty and following a jury trial was found guilty as charged He filed a motion for post judgment of acquittal and a motion for verdict new trial both of which were denied The defendant was then sentenced to four years of imprisonment at hard labor He now appeals arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction For the following reasons we affirm the defendanYs conviction and sentence FACTS On August 1 2011 the defendant was on lock in a cell by himself down in the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex where he was incarcerated Deputy Chad White with the Terrebonne Parish SherifF Office and Monique s Scales an emergency medical technician employed by the jail were passing out medication to the inmates when the defendant requested Tylenol and an antibiotic cream Scales had the Tylenol with her but had to return to her supply cart parked outside of the lock area to get the antibiotic cream She gave the down defendant the Tylenol and told him that she would bring the cream after she passed out medicine to the other inmates When Deputy White and Scales began to walk away from the defendanYs cell the defendant became upset He called Scales a b and threatened to throw s on Deputy White ing f and Scales and piss them down Deputy White walked back to the defendant s cell and closed the hatch on the front of the cell door After Deputy White hole closed the hatch he and Scales were hit with a liquid that came from a crack hole between the door and the wall of the defendanYs cell The two immediately left the area and cleaned their clothing and skin Deputy White then reported the incident to Sergeant John Verret The door of the defendanYs cell slid across the wall When closed there was a gap of approximately one or two inches wide between the door and wall 2 SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of battery of a correctional facility employee because the state failed to prove that urine was the substance thrown on Deputy White and Scales The constitutional standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence enunciated in Jackson v Virginia 443 U 307 99 S 2781 61 L 560 S Ct 2d Ed 1979 requires that a conviction be based on proof sufficient for any rational trier of fact viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to find the essential elements of the crime charged and defendant identity as the s perpetrator of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt State v Jones 596 So 2d 1360 1369 La App ist Cir writ denied 598 So 373 La 1992 2d The Jackson standard of review is an objective standard for testing the overall evidence both direct and circurnstantial 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 App 1st Cir 2 1492 03 14 845 So 416 420 2d Louisiana Revised Statute 14 provides 3 A 5 34 For purposes of this Section battery of a correctional facility employee includes the use of force or violence upon the person of the employee by throwing feces urine blood saliva or any form of human waste by an offender while the offender is incarcerated and is being detained in any jail prison correctional facility juvenile institution temporary holding center halfway house or detention facility The defendant did not testify or call any witnesses at trial He does not contest throwing a liquid substance at the correctional facility employees but claims that the substance thrown was water Deputy White Scales and Sergeant Verret testified at trial According to Sergeant Verret when he went to speak with Although the record indicates that the defendant threw a liquid substance at both Deputy White and Scales the bill of information charges the defendant with battery of Scales only 3 the defendant the defendant skated that he had thrown water on Scales and was yelling I got that b Scales testified that she saw the defendant throw a liquid from a cup but was not sure whether the liquid was urine Deputy White stated that the defendant had a history of throwing feces and urine on other inmates Although he could not say with certainty that the liquid thrown on him was urine Deputy White testified that based on his experience with the defendant and the defendant sthreats he believed that it was urine When asked whether he attempted to smell the liquid that had been thrown he stated that he did not and explained if I personally believe that it piss I not going to put it s m next to my nose He also testified that lock smells really bad like piss and down s and as a result he could not have distinguished an odor The trier of fact is free to accept or reject in whole or in part the testimony of any witness The trier of fact determination of the weight to be given evidence is not subject to s appellate review An appellate court will not reweigh the evidence to overturn a fact finder determination of guilt State v Taylor 97 La App lst Cir s 2261 98 25 9 721 So 929 932 2d The jury verdict reflected the reasonable conclusion that based on the s testimony of Deputy White and Scales the defendant threw urine at them In finding the defendant guilry the jury clearly rejected the defense stheory that the substance thrown was water When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the trier 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 which raises a reasonable doubt State v Moten 510 So 55 61 Zd La App ist Cir writ denied 514 So 126 La 1987 2d After a thorough review of the record we find that the evidence supports the jury verdict We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most s favorable to the state any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of 4 innocence suggested by the defense that the defendant was guilty of battery of a correctional facility employee See State v Calloway 07 La 1 1 2306 09 21 3d So 417 418 per curiam Accordingly this assignment of error lacks merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIIRMED 5
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.
