Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 19, 2000; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
On July 16, 1998, Johnny Moore was indicted for first degree murder, but on June 2, 1999, he was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The case arose from a fire at a townhouse on May 27, 1998, where firefighters discovered the burned body of William "Willie" Lewis, identified through x-rays and dental records. The victim's hands were tied with a blood-soaked fiber, and a claw-like hammer and metal pipe were found near the body. Fire investigators noted burn patterns indicative of an accelerant, suggesting the fire was intentionally set after the victim had already died from blunt force trauma to the head, as evidenced by skull fractures. Concurrently, Moore was apprehended for erratic cycling and making threats to a police officer, claiming he had just dropped off a gun. Upon arrest, he attributed the contents of a heavy duffel bag he was carrying to an abandoned house, but officers found no such property at the locations he mentioned. Detective Dan Anderson identified Moore's clothing from the arrest during the trial.
Norman Lewis identified his son’s belongings, including a duffel bag and various items, after the fire that resulted in his son’s murder. Detective John Riviere investigated the incident, interviewing neighbors and contacting handyman Rodney Weeden, a suspect at that time, who was advised of his rights before providing a statement. Weeden's information led Riviere to suspect Johnny Beasley, but upon visiting Beasley's address, he discovered that the actual suspect was Johnny Moore, who was incarcerated. Riviere discovered that Moore had been arrested shortly after the fire and obtained a court order to collect evidence, including clothes and blood samples from Moore. DNA analysis revealed that blood on Moore's pants matched the victim's type O blood, and his clothing showed contamination with a type 3 accelerant similar to paint thinner used at the victim's home.
Following this evidence, Moore was re-booked for murder. During questioning at police headquarters, Moore, after expressing remorse for the victim, claimed he was looking for Weeden and described an encounter with the victim, who had injuries. Moore stated that he was instructed to take a duffel bag containing the victim's property to a specific area. Trial testimonies included crime scene technician Teddy Fambro, who reported the absence of blood or fiber evidence from certain items, and criminalist Joe Tafaro, who confirmed accelerant presence on Moore's clothing. Officer Ed Delery explained that environmental conditions could have compromised potential fingerprint evidence from the crime scene.
The defense at trial argued that the murder of William Lewis was linked to the murder of Johnny Bachemin, which occurred nearby weeks later. Dr. Paul McGarry, who autopsied Bachemin, noted similarities in the violent methods used, including hammer blows to the head; however, Bachemin’s murder involved additional brutality, such as having his throat slit and being bound and gagged, unlike Lewis, who was set on fire with only his hands tied. Det. Dwight Deal, who led the Bachemin investigation, identified suspects Travis Johnson and Gary Harrell, who had a pattern of targeting gay males and were also suspected in the murder of Curtis Moon, sharing similar violent traits. Further evidence indicated that Johnson and Harrell were in the Thibodaux area during Lewis's murder. Witness Moore testified about personal interactions with Lewis, contesting another witness's claim regarding Lewis’s sexuality. Moore, in a state of intoxication and desperation, attempted to assist Lewis upon discovering him burning but confessed to stealing from him while fleeing.
On appeal concerning the sufficiency of evidence, the court must first address whether the evidence supports the conviction. If the aggregate evidence, both admissible and inadmissible, is sufficient, the accused is not entitled to acquittal, and the court will review any trial errors for a potential new trial. The appellate court assesses whether a rational fact-finder could have established proof beyond a reasonable doubt for each crime element, considering the evidence favorably for the prosecution and deferring to the jury's credibility assessments. In this case, the appellant's erratic behavior while stopped for reckless biking, his threats to officers, and the discovery of a duffel bag with the victim's belongings linked him to the crime. His clothing tested positive for accelerants similar to those found at the fire, and DNA evidence matched the victim's blood.
The appellant provided inconsistent testimony, claiming he entered the apartment to check on the victim, William, attempted to move a mattress off him, and impulsively stole items as he fled. Testimony from the coroner indicated that the victim died from blunt force trauma, not asphyxiation due to fire. An investigating officer confirmed the victim’s body was found under a mattress, with a hammer and pipe located underneath. Fire experts determined that the blaze was arson and too intense for the appellant to have entered the upper floor after the victim was set on fire. Consequently, the jury could reasonably conclude that the appellant unlawfully entered the apartment, killed the victim, initiated the fire to destroy evidence, and stole property, supporting a conviction for second-degree murder under specific intent or during the commission of aggravated burglary or armed robbery.
The appellant also asserted that the trial judge erred by not compelling the State to provide evidence related to the murder of Johnny Bachemin, which he claimed was exculpatory. He argued that the State's failure to disclose this information affected the trial's outcome, particularly since it was used during cross-examination and implied special knowledge to the jury. The due process clause requires disclosure of favorable evidence material to guilt or punishment, as established in Brady v. Maryland and expanded in Giglio v. U.S. The prosecution must provide evidence that, if withheld, would deny the defendant a fair trial. The test for materiality, from United States v. Bagley, indicates that evidence is material if its disclosure could have led to a different trial outcome. The defense sought an in camera review of the State's file on the Bachemin case, arguing that their defense was undermined without this information. They contended that the two murders bore similarities and that the appellant, already incarcerated when Bachemin was killed, could not be the perpetrator if linked to the same crime pattern.
Murders occurred close in time and location, both involving robbery, blunt force trauma, and arson. Victim William Lewis was found with his hands bound, struck in the back of the head, and his body was burned, while victim Bachemin had fractures from being struck in the face, was bound differently, and had a slit throat, indicating a signature crime linked to the murder of Curtis Moon. Bachemin's body was gagged, and both were meant to be discovered in their gruesome states. The appellant's claims of a connection between Lewis's murder and a series targeting homosexuals were challenged by State witnesses disputing Lewis's sexual orientation. Investigators confirmed that the suspects in Bachemin's case were not in the area when Lewis was murdered, suggesting no exculpatory evidence existed regarding Bachemin.
The appellant also contested the trial court's decision to admit photographs from arson investigators that were not disclosed during discovery, arguing this was prejudicial to his defense. Under Louisiana law, the court is obligated to order the State to allow the defendant to inspect evidence it intends to use, and any additional evidence must be promptly disclosed. The State had previously provided crime scene photographs, but introduced new photographs during the trial without prior notice. Despite the defense's objection, the court allowed the photographs, permitting the defense time to review, leading the appellant to claim this surprise evidence undermined his argument that he attempted to help Lewis before taking items from the ground floor.
Two arson investigation experts testified that the burn patterns on the second floor of the apartment indicated a significant use of accelerants, suggesting that the fire would not have cooled enough for a person to enter the room safely. Their credible testimony was supported by photographs, which supplemented their verbal accounts. In contrast, the appellant's testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility. Initially, he claimed to have obtained items in a duffel bag from an abandoned house, but later stated he visited William’s apartment for a job, where he encountered the victim with a bloody towel and was asked to deliver the duffel bag. He also admitted to stealing items after witnessing the fire. The appellant did not present any alternative defense to counter the expert testimony, and thus any potential error regarding the admission of photographs was deemed harmless.
In reviewing the record for errors patent, none were found, although the appellant claimed the trial court erred by not informing him of the two-year prescriptive period for post-conviction relief. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that the relevant statute does not create an enforceable right for defendants, so no action is required from the court regarding this issue. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the appellant were affirmed. Additionally, the appellant misinterpreted a statement regarding the prosecutor's knowledge of the photographs, which was clarified in the State's response.
