Date: 03-06-2016

Case Style: State Of Louisiana VS Charles Douglas Chandler II

Case Number: 2015KA1493

Judge: Mitchell R. Theriot, J. Michael McDonald, Page McClendon

Court: STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL

Plaintiff's Attorney: M. Bofill Duhe, Walter J. Senette, Jr.

Defendant's Attorney: Richard Allen Spears

Description: On April 28, 2013, between 11:00 p.m. and midnight, three gunshots were
fired on Columbus Avenue in Bayou Vista, Louisiana. The gunshots were heard
by bystanders and residents of the area, including Gwendolyn Landry Hidalgo,
who called 911 immediately after hearing the gunshots. Officers ofthe St. Mary
Parish Sheriff's Office (SMPSO) responded to the scene of the shooting at 1220
Columbus Avenue. Fifteen to twenty people were at the scene when the police
arrived, and the scene was in disarray. Patrol Lieutenant Jeremy Green ofSMPSO
arrived around ten to fifteen minutes after the gunshots were reported. He secured
the scene and summoned medical personnel for Wade Blackbum, Jr., the victim.
When the police arrived, the victim was lying unresponsive in the carport. Efforts
to revive the victim were unsuccessful, and he was pronounced dead at the scene.
The victim suffered a fatal contact gunshot wound to his abdomen. Lieutenant
2
Green located a spent shell casing at the scene. According to Tammy James, the
owner of the residence where the shooting occurred, the defendant showed up at
her residence looking for the victim that night, and the three shots were fired after
the defendant and the victim began tussling over the gun. Fragments from the first
gunshot grazed Tammy's stomach, fragments from the second shot hit her
daughter, and the third shot struck the victim. The defendant fled from the scene
after the shots were fired.
Unbeknownst to Craig Corbett Nini, sometime after the shooting, the
defendant hid in the backseat ofNini' s truck, which was parked in Bayou Vista at
the time. After Nini started his truck and pulled off, the defendant made his
presence known and instructed Nini to continue driving. Tyler Emmanuel Brewer,
who had ridden with Nini to Bayou Vista, was sitting outside and saw the
defendant when he ran and jumped into the back ofNini' s truck. Moments later,
Brewer observed the police in pursuit ofthe defendant and informed them that he
was in the back ofthe truck. Shortly after Nini drove off, the police swarmed the
vehicle and took custody ofthe defendant.
While executing a search warrant for the defendant's residence at 149 Sun
Road, the police located the gun used in the shooting, a Glock 30 .45 caliber semi
automatic pistol, under the TV stand in the defendant's bedroom.1 The gun had
several rounds in the magazine at the time of recovery and a spent cartridge was
located in the chamber.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
1
An additional shell casing was located at the scene. The parties entered into a joint stipulation regarding the testimony ofMark Kurowski, an expert in forensic firearms analysis. The parties stipulated that if called to testify Mr. Kurowski would testify that the shell casings in evidence and the bullet removed from the victim's body had the same class characteristics; that he could identify the shell casings as having been fired from the semi-automatic pistol; however, that it was not possible to identify or eliminate the bullet as having been fired from the semi-automatic
pistol.
3
In the sole assignment of error, the State argues that the trial court made
incorrect legal and factual determinations in granting the defendant's motion for
post-verdict judgment ofacquittal. The State notes that in granting the motion and
reducing the conviction to manslaughter, the trial court found the defendant did not
have the specific intent to kill and that the killing was committed during the
perpetration of an aggravated assault, which the trial court referred to as a felony.
Noting that an aggravated assault is a misdemeanor as opposed to a felony, the
State argues that a person with no intent to kill cannot be found guilty of
manslaughter based on a killing committed during the course of an aggravated
assault. The State also notes that the defense admitted the basic facts ofthe case,
but argued that the State had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt whose hands
were on the gun when it discharged, or alternatively (in case there is a finding of
specific intent), that the killing was committed in the heat ofpassion. As noted by
the State, the defense did not argue that the killing was committed during the
perpetration of an intentional misdemeanor directly affecting the person, nor did
the jury instructions include such a theory.
Further, the State argues that when the record is considered in the light most
favorable to the State, the jury was correct in finding the defendant had the specific
intent to kill and in unanimously rejecting the defendant's claim that the killing
was committed under the influence of hot blood. The State contends that the
finding of specific intent to kill in this case is a factual inference reasonably found
by the jury that the trial court should not have disturbed. The State notes that the
record shows that the defendant went to the residence angry and looking for the
victim, with the semi-automatic pistol loaded with hollow-point bullets, and stated,
I'm gonna' catch a murder charge tonight." The State further notes that the
defendant pulled out a semi-automatic pistol, "racked" the slide on the gun to put a
hollow-point bullet into the chamber, and fired the gun three times with the final
4
shot occurring as the gun was pressed against the victim's stomach, hitting a vital
area ofhis body. The State notes that the defendant took flight after the shooting
and hid the gun. Noting that the trial court found that based on the victim's
statements before the shooting the victim did not believe that the defendant had the
specific intent to kill him, the State argues that this single fact found by the trial
court is not sufficient to overturn the finding by the jury considering all of the
facts. The State concludes that the trial court applied the wrong standard of
review, impermissibly reweighing the facts ofthe case.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A post-verdict judgment of acquittal is to be granted only ifthe court finds
that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, does not
reasonably permit a finding of guilty. La. Code Crim. P. art. 821(B); State v.
Williams, 2004-1377 (La. App. 4th Cir. 12/1/04), 891 So.2d 26, 30. A trial judge
analyzing such a motion is not to re-weigh the evidence. See State v. Voorhies,
590 So.2d 776, 778 ( La. App. 3d Cir. 1991). In lieu of granting a post-verdict
judgment ofacquittal, a trial court may modify the verdict and render a judgment
of conviction on a lesser included responsive offense only if it finds that the
evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, supports only a conviction
of that responsive offense. La. Code Crim. P. art. 821(C); State v. Arabie, 496
So.2d 554, 557 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 1986), writ denied, 502 So.2d 565 ( La. 1987).
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 821(D) permits the State to appeal
from the modified conviction ofmanslaughter, and review on appeal is under the
standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560
1979). See State v. Benton, 464 So.2d 960, 961-62 ( La. App. 4th Cir. 1985);
State v. Korman, 439 So.2d 1099, 1100 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1983).
Jackson v. Virginia requires that we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could
5
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See
also La. Code Crim. P. art. 82l(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 ( La. 11/29/06),
946 So.2d 654, 660. In conducting the review under Jackson, we also must be
expressly mindful ofLouisiana's circumstantial evidence test, i.e., " assuming every
fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must
exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." La. R.S. 15:438; State v.
Wright, 98-0601 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/19/99), 730 So.2d 485, 486, writs denied,
99-0802 (La. 10/29/99), 748 So.2d 1157 & 2000-0895 ( La. 11/17/00), 773 So.2d
732; see also State v. Patorno, 2001-2585 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/21/02), 822 So.2d
141, 144.
DISCUSSION
Louisiana Revised Statute 14:30.1(A)(l) provides, in pertinent part, that
second degree murder is the killing of a human being when the offender has a
specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. Specific criminal intent is that
state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender
actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to
act. La. R.S. 14: 10(1 ). Specific intent need not be proven as a fact, but may be
inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of defendant.
State v. Graham, 420 So.2d 1126, 1127 (La. 1982). Thus, specific intent may be
proven by direct evidence, such as statements by a defendant, or by inference from
circumstantial evidence, such as a defendant's actions or facts depicting the
circumstances. Specific intent is an ultimate legal conclusion to be resolved by the
fact finder. State v. Buchanon, 95-0625 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/10/96), 673 So.2d
663, 665, writ denied, 96-1411 ( La. 12/6/96), 684 So.2d 923. Specific intent to
kill may be inferred from a defendant's act ofpointing a gun and firing at a person.
State v. Delco, 2006-0504 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/15/06), 943 So.2d 1143, 1146, writ
denied, 2006-2636 (La. 8/15/07), 961 So.2d 1160.
6
As noted, in this case the trial court reduced the jury's verdict to
manslaughter. Manslaughter is a responsive offense to second degree murder. La.
Code Crim. P. art. 814(A)(3). Manslaughter is defined, in pertinent part, by La.
R.S. 14:31(2)(a) as a homicide which may be committed without any intent to
cause death or great bodily harm, when the offender is engaged in the perpetration
of any felony not enumerated in Articles 30 or 30.1, or of any intentional
misdemeanor directly affecting the person. Under La. R.S. 14:37(A), an
aggravated assault is an " assault" committed with a dangerous weapon. " Assault"
is defined in La. R.S. 14:36 as " an attempt to commit a battery, or the intentional
placing ofanother in reasonable apprehension ofreceiving a battery." " Battery" is
defined by La. R.S. 14:33, in pertinent part, as the " intentional use of force or
violence upon the person of another[.]" Aggravated assault is an intentional
misdemeanor directly affecting the person that can support a conviction for
manslaughter. Such a crime, which may have the effect of reducing a charge of
second degree murder to manslaughter, does not require specific intent; it is
committed upon proof that the accused voluntarily did the act. See State v.
Brumfield, 329 So.2d 181, 189-90 (La. 1976).2
Dr. Cynthia Gardner, the forensic pathologist of the Orleans Parish
Coroner's Office who performed the autopsy, specifically testified that the gun
was touching the victim at the time ofthe gunshot to the abdomen, which caused
massive internal bleeding and was the cause of death. Dr. Gardner observed
residue ofburnt gunpowder or soot on the victim's wound, and a lack of stippling
on the wound, both indications of a contact wound. The bullet travelled through
the victim's heart and back to the left lung and rib where it was recovered.
2
Louisiana Revised Statute 14:3 l(A)(l) defines manslaughter as a " homicide which would be murder under either Article 30 (first degree murder) or Article 30.1 ( second degree murder), but the offense is committed in sudden passion or heat ofblood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person ofhis self-control and cool reflection." Herein, the trial court did not rely on this definition ofmanslaughter in reducing the conviction.
7
The trial took place about two years after the offense. At the time of the
offense, Clifton James Lodrigue lived in Bayou Vista at 1225 Columbus Avenue,
was a friend of the victim, and was familiar with the defendant. Just before the
shots were fired, Lodrigue's brother-in-law, Kyle Ramsey Riggins, woke up
Lodrigue and his girlfriend and told them that something was " about to go down."
After he opened his front door, Lodrigue observed the defendant from the back,
the defendant's Cadillac, and the victim's face. Lodrigue noted that a streetlight
was located in his yard, the carport light was on at the James's residence, and he
recognized the defendant by the long dreadlocks that he had at the time. Lodrigue
heard the victim state, " You're gonna' pull a gun on me?" At that point, Lodrigue
ran to his bedroom to put on some shorts, and as he ran back down the hall, he
heard three gunshots. Within seconds, Lodrigue made it back to the front door,
proceeded to approach the victim, and saw the defendant's face as he was running
to his car before he sped offfrom the scene. Lodrigue testified that the victim was
on his side in a fetal position; he rolled the victim over on his back, placed a pillow
behind his head, and observed the gunshot wound to his stomach. He further
testified, "We tried CPR, and he was already gone." Lodrigue testified that he was
the only person to move the victim's body and that he did not observe a firearm
near the victim. Lodrigue stayed with the victim until the paramedics arrived.
Tammy's son, Reginald Lee James, was also home at the time of the
shooting. Reginald, who was fifteen years old at the time ofthe trial, had known
the victim for many years and also knew the defendant. Reginald testified that the
victim spent a lot of time at the James' s residence before his death. Reginald
testified that they were outside when the defendant pulled up in the driveway in his
Cadillac. Tammy was walking in and out ofthe house doing laundry at the time,
using the machines located just outside of the home. The defendant appeared
angry when he exited his vehicle, sat on the front hood, and asked for the victim.
8
The defendant walked up to the house and attempted to enter, but Tammy did not
allow the defendant to enter the residence. The defendant sat back on the hood of
his vehicle and indicated that he wanted to see the victim without further
explanation. Tammy went into the residence to get the victim after the defendant
started cursing, asking, " Where f---ing Wade at?" Reginald told Detective Gil
Blanchard after the offense that the defendant had further stated, " I'm gonna' catch
a murder charge." When the victim came outside, the defendant walked towards
him, pulled out a gun from the back of his pants, and pointed it at the victim's
face. According to Reginald, the defendant did not respond when the victim
stated, " Are you gonna' pull a gun out in front ofMiss Tammy, in front ofall these
kids?" Reginald further testified, "So Wade Blackbum pushed the gun away from
everybody to prevent - ifa shot would have went off, prevent anybody from being
shot. And he pushed it away. And they started tussling for the gun." Reginald
further stated that the victim had a big afro and that the defendant grabbed the
victim at the top of his head and shot him. Reginald testified that he only heard
two gunshots and noted that the first shot ricocheted and hit his little sister and the
second shot hit the victim. After the shots were fired, the defendant went back to
his car and sped from the scene. Reginald never saw the victim with any object in
his hands and confirmed that the victim did not make any aggressive moves
toward the defendant, stating, " He stayed in that one spot."
On cross-examination, Reginald was asked if both the defendant and the
victim had their hands on the gun during the tussle. He stated that the victim only
pushed the gun away, adding, " I guess he [ the victim] pushed his [ the defendant's]
hand or something ... so just in case he was to shoot, it wouldn't hit one of my
sisters or something." After being pressed further, Reginald stated that there was a
struggle over the gun. Reginald did not see the victim with a weapon and testified
9
that his brother, Kyle, attempted CPR on the victim before the police and
paramedics arrived.
Tammy's son, Darrell Riggins, was home at the time of the shooting and
also testified at the trial. Darrell considered the defendant an associate and the
victim a family friend. Darrell went outside when he heard the " commotion." He
testified that he heard his mother and the defendant as they " passed words" and
recalled that the defendant was looking for Wade. When asked how the defendant
looked emotionally, Darrell stated, " he had like a look on him like I never seen
Chuck look like that in his life," adding, " Like an angry look, like." Darrell noted
that shortly after he came outside, the victim came outside behind him and
exchanged words with the defendant. Darrell stated that the defendant was leaning
against his vehicle. Darrell observed the defendant when he pulled the gun, adding
that he believed the defendant pulled out the gun from his back. After the
defendant pulled the gun out, the victim stated, " Like, man, you're gonna' really
pull this gun out, you know what I mean? Like, in front of Miss Tammy, you
know, and the kids?" Darrell testified that the victim was trying to resolve the
issue to avoid an escalation and did not make any threatening moves toward the
defendant or pull out a gun. He described the victim as a " good kid" who " was not
like that." He testified that the defendant grabbed the victim's hair and "[ t]he gun
just was going off, like, three times. And like when Wade got hit - you know ...
he just leaning in front ofthe carport, you know. And I ran up to him, and I asked,
Wade, you okay?"' Darrell stated that he saw the defendant point the gun at the
victim's face and described the struggle over the gun as " crazy." Darrell
confirmed that he never saw any other firearm at the scene. Darrell testified that
he could see the tussle clearly, adding that he was " right there" and was
approaching to try to help " dissolve" the situation. He stated that he did not see
10
the victim touch the gun. Darrell stated that he tried to perform CPR on the victim
but could not recall ifanyone else attempted to do so.
Tammy's daughter, De' Angela James, who was thirteen years old at the
time of the trial, also witnessed the shooting. De' Angela testified that the
defendant parked his Cadillac at the end ofthe driveway when he arrived, and she
noted that her mother was doing laundry at the time. De' Angela testified that
when she came outside the defendant seemed angry, stating that he came to the
door with the gun and asked for Wade, and then he walked back to his vehicle and
set his gun on the hood. When asked if the defendant said anything, De' Angela
testified that the defendant stated that he was " gonna' catch a murder charge."
De' Angela further testified that the defendant " rigged the back" or " pulled the
little clip thing at the top part of the gun," and when the victim came outside, he
told the defendant to not put the gun in his face " like that." The gun went off
when the defendant and the victim started to " fuss" over it. When asked for a
further description of the word ' fuss', she stated that as they stood close to each
other, the victim was telling the defendant to stop pointing the gun at his face.
De' Angela did not see the victim with a gun and did not see him threaten the
defendant. She confirmed that the first gunshot hit her mother, the second gunshot
hit her sister, and the third gunshot hit the victim. She saw the defendant get in his
car and drive offafter the shooting. During cross-examination, she confirmed that
the victim's hands were not on the gun during the " fuss" and that she only saw the
defendant's hands on the gun.
Tammy's daughter, Amber James, testified at the trial that she was home
when the defendant initially came to the residence and talked to Kyle. She was
also present when the defendant returned shortly thereafter looking for the victim.
She noted that the defendant parked his car under the carport as she stood near a
dumpster about five to ten feet away. She noted that the defendant was " so angry"
11
at the time. Amber also heard the defendant state that he was going to " catch a
murder charge." She testified that when the victim came outside, the defendant
pulled the gun out. She stated that the defendant then, " racked it to get ready to
shoot him" and pointed the gun at the victim's chest. At that point, the victim
stated, "[ y ]ou gonna pull out a gun in front ofall ofus?" She further testified that
the victim then grabbed the defendant's hand to push the gun away. She stated
that the first gunshot ricocheted and hit her on the leg, the second gunshot hit her
mother, and the final gunshot hit the victim above his " belly button." She noted
that the defendant grabbed the victim's hair before firing the last shot. Amber
confirmed that she actually saw the defendant's hand on the trigger when it was
fired and that the victim's hand was not on the gun.
Kyle, Tammy's son, testified that he and the victim were long-time friends
and that he knew the defendant before the shooting. He stated that the victim was
spending the night at his house at the time ofthe shooting. He further testified that
the defendant came to his house looking for the victim twice that night, but the
victim was not there at the time ofthe initial visit. He noted that the defendant was
aggressive and agitated. When the defendant returned, he was still aggressive and
Kyle went across the street to wake up Lodrigue and his sister, Grace Riggins, and
then ran back to the scene. Kyle testified that he was about two to three feet away
when the defendant pulled his gun out. When the victim exited the house, the
defendant ran towards him. Kyle noted that the victim was still sleepy and was
rubbing his eyes. According to Kyle, the defendant stated, " I got you now." He
further testified that in response, the victim stated, " You really got this gun in my
face at Miss Tammy house in front ofall these people like this?" He added, " And
then Wade, he reached out and he grabbed the gun out ofhis face.... He reached
with his right or left hand ... and they went to struggling for the gun. And the gun
went offthree times." Kyle testified that although the victim touched the gun, the
12
defendant's hands were on the gun when it was fired and his finger was on the
trigger as the gun was in the victim's face. After the shots were fired, the
defendant walked quickly back to his car and sped off. Kyle stated that Lodrigue
helped him roll the victim over and that he tried to give the victim CPR. Kyle
testified that the victim was not in possession of any objects. Kyle confirmed on
cross-examination that he actually saw the defendant's finger on the trigger when
he pulled out the gun and pointed it at the victim's face.
Tammy, consistent with the other witnesses, testified that she was doing
laundry when the defendant drove up and asked for the victim. She testified that
the defendant stated, " I'm gonna catch a f---ing murder charge tonight," when he
pulled out the gun. The victim stated, " You're gonna put this gun in my face in
front of Miss Tammy and the children, really?" The victim and the defendant
began tussling over the gun, the defendant stuck his hand deep into the victim's
hair to pull the victim toward him, and the gun went off. Tammy confirmed that
she was grazed by a bullet on the stomach, Amber was grazed on the leg, and the
victim was shot with the third gunshot. Tammy testified that she never saw the
victim with a gun that night. On cross-examination, Tammy stated that she could
not see whose hands were on the gun during the tussle, but stated that the
defendant's hands had to be on the gun when it went off.
In reducing the conviction to manslaughter, the trial court concluded that the
defendant did not have the specific intent to kill the victim. The trial court noted
while the defendant was acting like a " street punk," the victim approached him,
seemingly with no fear, and based on his statements, the victim did not believe that
the defendant would shoot him. The trial court also noted that there was a battle
over the gun and the weak point was the trigger, concluding that the jury
reasonably should have found that the defendant did not have the specific intent to
13
kill, but that he killed the victim while engaged m the perpetration of an
aggravated assault.
It is the role of the fact finder to weigh the respective credibilities of the
witnesses, and the trial court should not second-guess the credibility
determinations of the trier of fact. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 821(B); see also
State ex rel. Graffagnino, 436 So.2d 559, 563 ( La. 1983), ( citing State v.
Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 ( La. 1983)). When a case involves circumstantial
evidence and the trier of fact reasonably rejects a 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.2d 55, 61 ( La. App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 514 So.2d 126 ( La. 1987). We find
that there is no other hypothesis that exists in the instant case that raises a
reasonable doubt. The verdict rendered in this case indicates that the jury inferred
the specific intent to kill based on the testimony presented at the trial and rejected
the hypothesis of innocence that the shooting was accidental. In reviewing the
evidence, we cannot say that the jury's determination was irrational under the facts
and circumstances presented to them. See Ordodi, 946 So.2d at 662. The trial
court erred by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of
witnesses for that ofthe fact finder and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis
ofan exculpatory hypothesis ofinnocence presented to, and rationally rejected by,
the jury. See State v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La. 1121/09), 1 So.3d 417, 418 ( per
curiam).
Although the witnesses testified that there was a struggle when the victim
tried to prevent the shooting, the witnesses were consistent that the defendant had
his finger on the trigger before the shots were fired. Further, the bulk of the
testimony supported a finding that the shooting was intentional and that the
defendant was in control ofthe weapon when he fired three shots. It is well-settled
14
that a jury is free to believe some, none, or all of any witness's testimony. While
the definition ofmanslaughter relied upon by the trial court is not legally incorrect
as argued by the State, the trial court could not re-weigh the evidence in
considering the motion to acquit. Voorhies, 590 So.2d at 778. We find that the
trial court impermissibly did so in this case. The jury's apparent inference of
specific intent to kill was reasonable based on the circumstances presented. Based
on our careful review, we are convinced that any rational trier offact, viewing the
evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the State, could find the
evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence, all ofthe elements of second degree murder. 3
The trial court erred in modifying the verdict and rendering a judgment of the
lesser offense ofmanslaughter. The State's sole assignment oferror has merit.

Outcome: For the reasons discussed, the trial court's ruling modifying the verdict on
count one to manslaughter is reversed, and the original conviction of second
degree murder is reinstated. Further, the case is remanded for sentencing based on
the jury's verdict. The trial court is directed to inform the defendant of the
provisions of Article 930.8 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure at
sentencing.

TRIAL COURT'S MODIFICATION OF VERDICT ON COUNT ONE REVERSED; SECOND DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION REINSTATED; CASE REMANDED FOR SENTENCING ON BOTH CONVICTIONS.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: