State Of Louisiana VS Stephanie Nicole Lide
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UBLICATION. ESIGNA_'':' '( NOT t)' LOUISIANA TA.":i; COU T OF A PEAL FI1 ST CIRCUIT 2013 KA 1350 OF L( L 4 3ANA ST"' VE STEP AlVI SUS NIi' OLE LID:E l nAT OI T APPEAI. FROM I'I oF.rUnc 1 N: ¢ APR 2 8 2014 TWENTY- SECOND 7UDICIAL DISTRICT COURT dU' vBER 523631 ; DIV. A, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY FA fE OF I,C LTISIANA C iON Wai er 3'. ; IZA.BLE R. aY" Iv10ND S. : C unsel for Plaintiff-Appel: ee eed State of I: o isiana Dis°r; Att rney ct Covington, Kathryn W. HILDR, SS, J' DGE ouisiana Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Landry Baton Rouge, Louisiana StaLe of Louisiana Lieu T. Vo Counsel for Jefendan±rlppellant 1ark Mandeville, Louisiar. a 3EFOf2: Ste hanie Ivi ole Lide KC1-lN, tIltiCiINI30TF AM. AND ii3ERIC3T, 3.f. Disposition: CONV[ CTTON Ai d6 SLNTENCF: AFFIR 7CD. KUHN, J. The defendant, Ste hanie N. Lide, was charged by bill of information with one count of second degr c battery, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 341, and pled not guiity. Following a jury trial, she was found guilty of the responsive offense of battery, simple judgmeni vioiation a of acquittal of La. R. S. and a new trial, 1435. but the She moved for a post verdict motions were denied. She was sentenced to ninety days in parish ja'sl, suspended, and one year probation, subject to special conditions, including a fine of $Y00. She now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Far the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence. FACTS The victim, Crys al F'ahm, testified she was out with her friends Jennifer and Lisa in O(de Towne in Slidell during the early hours of April 14, 2012. According to tre victim, as she approached her friends, the defendant threw a drink on her, and Jennifer stood in froi2t of ihe victim, trying to calm her. The defendant then punched the victim in the face, Irnocking her back iirto the tables. The victim' s nose ushed hlaod, a d she had difficulty breathing. She was taken b} ambulance to the hospital and diagnosed as having a nasal bone fracture and a deviated nasal The victim denied physically or verbally provoking the defendant to septum. attack her. She did not dispute hospital records indicating she was heavily intoxicated N hen she was treated at the hospital following the incident. 3e_ niler Grisaffi testified she was out with the victim at the time of the n incident. when victim Jennitet she' and siated went to saw the tliat she saw the v:ctim pass ar cto the something." say something Jennifer approached the derendant throw her drink on the Jennifer did not indicate whether she was referring to the defendant or the victim. f defendant, " and that' s victim. According to Jennifer, the victim did not to: cr ne defenda ir r make any aggressive motions toward her before the drink was d?rown. Jennifer indicated she stood in front of the victim after the drink was thrown to calm the victim down, and the defendant came around" Jennifer and punched the victim in the face. Jennifer testified that the victim did not threaten the defendant before the punch was thrown, and denied that the victim grabbed the defendant' s face or hair. Slidell Police Department Officer Clint McCall was on patrol in Olde Towne at the time of the incident. He saw the defendant throw a drink on the victim and strike her in the face defendart ar grab with a closed fist. He did not see the victim touch the He testified the throwing of the drink drew his her hair. attention to the defendant and the victim. The d fendant testified she had served in the Navy with the military police. She indicated on the night of the incident, she was out with her friend, who was alsa named Stephanie, and was not drinking because she was the designated driver. The defendant stated she was walking her friend Scotty to his car when he " hit on" the The defendant victim. to the defendant, the viciim You heard she threw a me, told Scotty, " on the victim " to victim] came out of my face." diffuse [ sic] the grabbed the defendant' s face and hair. the alone. She' s fake." According sked her what she had said, and the defendant replied, CrystaL You' re fake. Get drink victim after "[ leave her to come The defendant claimed situation," and the victim The defendant testified she punched the back at [ the defendant]." While conceding the victim did not threaten her with death or great bodily harm, the defendant stated she had reason to believe the victim could have inflicted great bodily liarm on her when the victim grabbed the defendant' s face. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE In assignment of error number 1, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying the motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal. In assignment of errar 3 number 2, she argues the trial coun erred in denying the motion for new triaL In assignment of error number 3, she argues the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. The defendant c mbines the assignments of error in her brief, and argues the evidence established she acted in self-defense. She does not challenge the proof of her identity: The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could conclude the State proved the essential elements of tne c" _ and the defendanYs identity as the perpetrator of that crime beyond a r me reasonabie c'toubt. in conducting this review, we also must be expressly mindful of Louisiana' s circumstantial evidence test, which states in part, '"assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict," every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. State v. Wright, 98- 0601 ( La. App. lst Cir. 2/ 19/ 99), 730 So. 2d 485, 486, writs denied, 99- 0802 (La. 10/ 29/ 99), 748 So. 2d 1157 & 200(- 0895 ( La. 11/ 17/ 00), 773 So. 2d 732 ( quoting La. R.S. 15: 438). Wl en a conviction is based on both direct and circumstanrial evidence, the reviewing court must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light mosi favorable to the prosecution. When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence and the facts reasonably inferred from the circumstantial evidenoe must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. Wright, 730 So. 2d at 487. As is pertinent here, battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another. La. R. S. Simple battery is a battery committed 1433. wiYhout the consent of the victim. La. R.S. 1435. Louisiana Revised Statutes 14: 19, in pertinent part, provides: 4 4. The use of iorcE ; r violence apor. the person of another is justifable when ccm r itted far the purpose of preventing a forcible oifense against the person ... pruvic ed that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and tY at this Sectio_ s? a11 not apply where tlie force or violence results i in a homicide. C. A person who is ncat engaged in unlavrful activity and who is in a place where he or she ha a right tc b shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as pr vided f r in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force. D. No fir. der of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in deterrnining whether or not the pers n who used force or violence in defense of his person ... had a reasonable belief that farce or iolence was reasonabte and anparen±ly riecessary to prevent a forcible offense.... However, La. R.S. 14: 21 provides: A person who is the aggressor or vh z brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self-defer.se unless he witlidraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that: his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict. In a non-homicide situation, a claim of self-defense requires a dual inquiry: first, an objective inquiry into whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances, and, second, a suhjective inqu'vry into whether the force used was apparently necessary. In a homicide case, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the homicide s as not perpetrated in selt= defense. However, Louisiana la v is unc3ear as to who has the burden of proving self-defense in a non-homicide case. In previous cases dealing with this issue, t;us Court has analyzed the evidence under both standards of review, that is, whether the defendant proved self-defense by a preponderance orthe evidence or whetherthe State proved beyand a reasonable doubt tnat the defendant did not act in self-deFense. Similarly, we need not decide in this case who has the burden of proving ( or disproving) self-defense, because under either standard the evidence sufficiently establishea that defendant did not act in seifdefense: State v. Taylor, 97- 2261 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 9/ 25./98), 721 So.2d 929, 931. 5 Any rational trier cf fact, ` iewing the eviuence presented in this case in the light most favorable to the State, could find that the evidence proved beyond a reasonabie doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, all of the elements of simple battery and that the defendant' s attack on the victim was not justified. The verdict rendered in this case indicates the jury rejected the defendant' s c'.aim that the victim was the aggressor in this case. When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant' s own testimony, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt. State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 680 ( La. 1984). No such hypoihesis exists in the instant case. _ Additionally, the verdict indicates the jury rejected the defendant' s testimony, accepted the testimony offered against her, and rejected her attempts to discredit that testimony. This Court will not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence to overturn a fact finder' s determination of guilt. The testimony of the victim alone is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. The trier of fact may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. 1Vloreover, when there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the resoiutian of which depends upon a detern7ination of the credibility of the wimesses, the matter is one of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. State v. Lofton, 96- 142 ( La. App. lst Cir. 3/ 27/ 97), 691 So.2d 1365, 1368, writ denied, 97- 1124 ( La. 10/ 17/ 97), 701 So.2d 1331. Further, in reviewing the evidence, we cannot say tbat the jury' s det rmination was irrational under the facts and circumstances presented to them. See State v. Ordodi, 2006- 0207 ( La. 11/ 29/ 06), 946 So. 2d 654, 662. An appellate court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibii_ ity of wimesses for that ot the fact fnder auci thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to, and rationally b rejected by, the jury. St aie v. , a Pr way, 23 i- 346 ( La. 1/ 21/ 09), 1 So3d 417, 418 ( per curiam). t' ny rational trier of fact, ; riewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution; could also find that the evidence established that the defendant was the aggressor in the conflict, and rhus, was not entitled to claim self-defense. Moreover, even if it could be found tnai the defendant was not the aggressor, any rationai trier of fact could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant did not act in setfdefense. TesYimony at trial indicated the defendant threw a drink on the victim; reached around Jennifer, who was trying to defuse the situation; and forcefully punched the victim in the nose. These assignments oi' error are without merit. DECREE F'ar these reasons, we affirm the conaiction and sentence of defendant, Stephanie N. Lide. CdNVICTION A_ D SENTENCE ATFIRMED. N 7
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.
