State v. Major

Citations: 708 So. 2d 813; 1998 WL 102970Docket: 96-KA-1214

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; March 3, 1998; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Corey Major and Link Jacques were indicted for first-degree murder but convicted of manslaughter after a jury trial. On January 16, 1994, they were involved in a confrontation with Reynold Mercadel outside Club Rumors. Following a verbal exchange, Major and Jacques pursued a group leaving the club in an Oldsmobile Cutlass, driven by Jeffrey Sanders. As they followed, shots were fired from their white Nissan Altima, fatally wounding Sanders. The Cutlass crashed into a utility pole. 

Witnesses reported the shooting, leading police to stop the Altima shortly after the event. During a brief chase, an officer observed a rifle being discarded from the vehicle. Subsequently, Major and Jacques were arrested, and witnesses identified them as the shooters. A third co-defendant, James Riley, was implicated but only identified by one witness. The police recovered an SKS rifle and several live cartridges near the scene and within the vehicle, indicating multiple firearms may have been used. The appellants were sentenced to thirty years of hard labor, which their counsel argued was excessive and not compliant with sentencing guidelines.

No bullet was recovered from the body, and the recovered weapons and shells lacked sufficient fingerprints for identification. Live and spent shells found at the scene were consistent with 7.62 x 39 millimeter ammunition used in an SKS rifle, but comparison results with the rifle were inconclusive. A .357 magnum shell was confirmed to have been fired from a handgun. The defense's ballistics expert testified that the victim could not have been shot by the SKS rifle based on the wound sizes, but the State did not counter this with another expert during rebuttal. Witness Gregory McGee stated he conversed with defendants Corey Major and Link Jacques at Club Rumors but did not enter their vehicle and did not see the rifle. Defendant Link Jacques admitted to being at Club Rumors, arguing with Major, and discarding the rifle during a police chase, claiming they intended to sell it. He denied that shots were fired from the Altima, asserting that shots came from a Rodeo, hitting a Cutlass instead. 

Corey Major raised a Brady claim, alleging the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial due to the State's withholding of exculpatory evidence, which violated due process under Brady v. Maryland. Major argued that the undisclosed evidence, which included witness statements describing a shooter as approximately 6'1" with gold teeth, could have affected the trial outcome. The defense noted that Major's height is 5'9" and Jacques' height is 6'3", suggesting the description did not match either defendant. The police report indicated that the descriptions were likely related to an unknown third person.

Defense witness Gregory McGee testified he was present with Major and Jacques before leaving a parking lot, estimating his height at 5'11". Even if the defense had received a description before trial, the jury would likely still associate it with an unknown third person or the notably tall Link Jacques. The defense also cited withheld Brady evidence, including a spent shell found over a month post-incident, which was consistent with a rifle one defendant admitted to abandoning. Testing by the State was inconclusive regarding whether the shell was fired from that rifle, and the potential impact of this evidence on the verdict was deemed minimal. Another withheld piece of evidence involved prosecution witness Reynold Mercadel's prior conviction for firearm possession, disclosed during cross-examination. The defense argued that prior knowledge of this conviction would have allowed them to impeach Mercadel's credibility, but this claim was rejected. The defense's theory remained focused on different suspects, Greg Holmes and William Culliver, and the opportunity to impeach Mercadel was available during trial. The defense counsel for Jacques was aware of Mercadel's conviction before making an opening statement but did not leverage it, and the collective impact of the withheld evidence was found not to have affected the verdict. 

Corey Major, representing himself, contended the evidence was insufficient for a conviction, asserting that only one witness saw a gun from his seat while others indicated shots came from the rear. He also argued there was no evidence of his acting in "sudden passion" or "heat of blood." Under La. R.S. 14:24, all individuals involved in a crime, regardless of their role, are considered principals, which supports the conviction despite Major's claims.

Witness testimony indicated that Major was involved in a dispute at a parking lot, and a single witness suggested he was a shooter. Jacques confirmed that Major had picked him up in a vehicle with a rifle already inside. The evidence presented allowed a reasonable jury to conclude that Major was a principal in the crime. According to La. R.S. 14:31, manslaughter can be categorized under two scenarios: (1) a homicide that would typically qualify as murder due to sudden passion or provocation that impairs self-control; and (2) a homicide without intent to kill that occurs during the commission of a felony or intentional misdemeanor. The court noted that 'sudden passion' and 'heat of blood' are mitigating factors rather than elements of manslaughter, which could apply given the circumstances leading up to the shooting. The defendants' actions suggested an intention to kill, and the State isn't required to prove mitigating factors. Additionally, the defendants could be found guilty of manslaughter for a homicide committed during aggravated assault. Regarding sentencing, both defendants contended their sentences were excessive and that the trial court did not provide adequate justification. Jacques claimed ineffective counsel for not filing a motion to reconsider the sentence; however, an oral objection preserved the claim for appeal. Under the Louisiana Constitution, sentences, even if within statutory limits, can be deemed excessive. The reviewing court must evaluate if the trial judge adhered to La. C.Cr. P. art. 894.1 guidelines and if the sentence was appropriate given the case's circumstances, noting that maximum sentences should be reserved for the most serious offenders. The focus of Article 894.1 is to articulate a factual basis for the sentence rather than ensure strict compliance with its rules.

An adequate factual basis for a sentence negates the need for resentencing, even if there is not full compliance with Art. 894.1, as established in State v. Lanclos. A sentence will not be overturned for excessiveness if supported by the record, per La. C.Cr. P. art. 881.4(D). Sentencing courts have broad discretion within statutory limits, and a sentence is only excessive if there is a manifest abuse of discretion, as noted in State v. Square. The maximum sentence for the offense is forty years at hard labor, while the appellants received thirty-year sentences. The trial judge opposed parole for the defendants, who were first offenders, and considered the legislative increase in the maximum penalty. The judge allowed petitions from the defendants and heard testimony, determining the sentences based on the seriousness of the offense, which involved a submachine gun and posed significant danger to the community. The judge's personal references were seen as indicative of a broader concern for community safety rather than personal bias. Ultimately, the trial court's actions were found to comply with Art. 894.1, and the sentences were deemed appropriate and not excessive. The convictions and sentences were affirmed.