Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 31, 2017; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
On July 19, 2012, Joenell Rubin was indicted for the first-degree murder of Brenda Dupont, occurring during the commission of aggravated rape on May 21, 1988, as outlined in La.R.S. 14:30(A)(1). A jury found him guilty on January 27, 2016, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without benefits on February 18, 2016. Rubin appealed his conviction and sentence, citing two errors, but the court affirmed both. The trial court was instructed to notify Rubin of La.Code Crim. P. art. 930.8 provisions within ten days and file proof of such notice.
During the January 25, 2016 trial, key testimony was provided by Linda Nicholas, Brenda Dupont's sister. She recounted that Rubin had visited her home the day before the murder and was removed after an altercation involving a knife. Nicholas last saw Dupont that evening around 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. The next morning, after failing to wake Dupont, she called the police, who discovered Dupont's body. Nicholas noted that no one entered or exited Dupont's apartment that night despite her proximity to it. The second witness, Rene Speyer, presented a video of the 1988 crime scene, revealing damage to vegetation and footprints leading from a bedroom window, as the bedroom door had been locked from the inside.
Defendant’s cross-examination of Mr. Speyer focused on identifying specific items in a video, but Mr. Speyer admitted he could not establish an entry point into the apartment and did not observe any broken or pried-open windows, noting that many windows had undisturbed items. He indicated that the only disturbed area in the house was a dresser drawer that was pulled out and overturned. Sergeant Loretta Etienne, the evidence custodian with only six months in the role, testified about the secure storage of evidence but clarified that she was not responsible for investigative reports and had joined the force after Brenda Dupont's death. Dr. Dawn Young, an expert in Medical/Legal Death Investigation, testified that the victim had defensive wounds and incisions on her body, along with a potential bite mark, but could not determine whether the victim was raped or had consensual sex based solely on external examination. She noted that a vaginal swab contained semen, but no testing was conducted to identify donors, although sperm was found in various smear samples. Following her testimony, Mr. Patrick Lane from the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab detailed the evidence he received from Dr. McCormick and confirmed that Defendant’s fingerprints, tested on May 25, 1988, did not match any found in the apartment, despite testing over twenty individuals. Lastly, Mr. Jude Victorian from the Opelousas Police Department testified that he consulted Dr. Bill Lagattuta regarding bite marks on the victim, and Dr. Lagattuta concluded that Clint Thompson’s dental impression did not match the bite marks.
Mr. Victorian could not recall specific details about the investigation or interviews he conducted but mentioned that he would have prepared reports included in the case file. Mr. Ronnie Trahan, a former employee of the Opelousas Police Department, testified about a conversation with Dr. Lagattuta regarding evidence related to Ms. Dupont’s death, stating that Dr. Lagattuta had not matched the submitted photos with Clint Thompson’s dental records. Trahan did not retrieve any evidence from Dr. Lagattuta, as it had already been returned to Mr. Victorian, and he did not recall writing a report about his trip.
Mr. George Schiro, an expert in forensic science, testified that in 1988, Louisiana lacked public crime laboratories for DNA testing, with law enforcement primarily using blood-typing. In a cold case investigation in 2012, a DNA profile from a vaginal swab matched the Defendant's DNA, with a probability of misidentification at one in thirteen billion. Schiro also stated that the chance of incorrectly identifying the Defendant via Y-chromosome testing was about one in three hundred billion. He noted that it was impossible to determine whether the intercourse was consensual or non-consensual and that seminal fluid was present in rectal swabs without spermatozoa, while sperm heads were found in the vaginal swab.
Schiro mentioned that sperm could survive in the female cervix for up to nineteen days, making timing indeterminate. He indicated that other items had been tested for DNA, generating profiles entered into CODIS, but further Y-testing was unnecessary without a comparison subject. Doris Hoffpauir, a DNA expert from the St. Tammany Parish Coroner’s Office, confirmed her analysis matched the Defendant's DNA profile. Dr. Christopher Tape, a forensic specialist, validated the original autopsy report, confirming the victim died from thirty-one stab wounds.
Numerous wounds on the victim’s hands were identified as defensive wounds. Dr. Tape expressed skepticism about the reliability of bite mark matching, highlighting its difficulty and the commonality of dental features. He noted that the medications found in the victim’s system, specifically phenothiazines, were within therapeutic ranges and did not concern him.
Lieutenant Greg Leblanc from the Opelousas Police Department obtained a search warrant for the Defendant’s DNA to confirm a match from CODIS. Sergeant Crystal Leblanc collected and sealed the DNA sample from the Defendant, ensuring it was transported to the Acadiana Crime Lab for analysis.
Ms. Sybil Guidry, a forensic science expert in fingerprint identification, testified that she conducted fingerprint comparisons, confirming that only the victim’s daughter, Monica Bergeron, matched prints recovered from the crime scene, while none matched the Defendant’s.
An audio recording of a May 23, 1988, interview with the Defendant was played, during which he denied knowing the victim, despite having been at her home the previous day. Mr. Trahan, the officer present, noted scratches on the Defendant’s neck but could not confirm their origin. The Defendant's niece, Stephanie Keys, denied scratching him.
Dwain Grimmett, a retired private investigator, discussed his efforts to review this cold case, revealing that parts of the original case file were lost or discarded. He presented video interviews from 2012 where the Defendant again denied any sexual contact with the victim, claiming he did not know her. Grimmett concluded that the crime scene suggested a rape had occurred, contradicting any notion of consensual interaction.
Mr. Grimmett testified about interviewing Ms. Irma Robinson in April 2012, who claimed to have witnessed events related to the victim's murder in 1988. She stated she heard a woman screaming and attempted to call 9-1-1, but there were no records to confirm her call. Grimmett noted that he did not request DNA testing on other evidence, specifically the victim’s clothing, to check for a match with the defendant.
Jean Harrison, an investigator and the first officer on the scene, identified a back window as the exit point since all doors were locked from the inside. She described the crime scene, noting blood on the bed and wall, with the victim deceased on the floor.
The defendant's first witness, Jim Churchman, a former custodian of physical evidence at the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab, expressed regret about returning untested evidence to the police, believing that it would have implicated another suspect. He stated that his previous decision was made based on the information available at the time.
Howard Zerangue, Jr., the Chief of Police during the initial investigation, testified about his limited role and indicated that the lead detective managed the case file. Following extensive testimonies, the jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree murder during the commission of an aggravated rape by a 10-2 verdict.
In reviewing the case for errors, it was noted that the trial court failed to provide written notice of the defendant's right to seek post-conviction relief, which is required. The court instructed that this notice must be sent to the defendant within ten days and documented in the record.
On appeal, the defendant raised two errors: first, that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and second, that the trial court improperly admitted an exculpatory statement made by the defendant, which was deemed inadmissible hearsay.
Defendant's first assignment of error claims insufficient evidence to support his conviction. The appellate review follows the standard from *Jackson v. Virginia*, requiring the court to assess whether, when viewing the evidence favorably for the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find all elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For a first-degree murder conviction, the State must demonstrate that the defendant killed someone with the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm on multiple persons. Specific intent can be inferred from the offense's circumstances and the defendant's actions, such as pointing and firing a gun. The appellate court emphasizes that it must defer to the jury's credibility assessments and evidentiary determinations, intervening only to uphold due process rights. The core question remains whether any rational jury could have established the essential elements of the crime based on trial evidence.
In cases involving circumstantial evidence, a jury's rejection of a defendant's hypothesis of innocence—based on the defendant's own testimony—leads to a presumption of guilt unless another hypothesis casts reasonable doubt. This principle is supported by precedents such as *State v. Captville* and *State v. Ellis*. The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence is assessed not by its ability to match eyewitness testimony, but by its capacity to eliminate reasonable doubt.
During a two-day trial regarding a murder from over twenty years prior, extensive testimony was presented. Notably, the victim’s sister, Ms. Nicholas, described the defendant’s violent behavior, including an incident where he brandished a knife in her home. DNA evidence linked the defendant to the victim, with a highly improbable chance of misidentifying him based on genetic testing. Despite this, the defendant denied any sexual interaction with the victim.
Medical testimony indicated the victim suffered thirty-one stab wounds and defensive injuries, suggesting a struggle during the attack. A video interview of the defendant further illustrated his denials regarding his knowledge of the victim. The crime scene evidence—including blood and overturned furniture—strongly suggested a violent rape and murder. The prosecution's expert witness provided insights based on extensive law enforcement experience, allowing the jury to assess his credibility alongside the graphic evidence presented.
Proof of murder committed during an aggravated rape fulfills the requirements for first degree murder under Louisiana law, specifically La. Rev. Stat. 14:30. This statute defines first degree murder as the intentional killing of a person while the offender is engaged in certain felonies, including aggravated rape. The jury evaluated the evidence and determined that the prosecution met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is not the court's role to challenge the jury's credibility assessments.
In the second assignment of error, the Defendant claims the trial court improperly admitted his exculpatory statements as hearsay, arguing they should have been excluded under La. Code Evid. art. 804(B)(3) since they were not against his interest. The State counters that the Defendant’s denial of having sex with the victim, despite being false, renders the statements inculpatory. Furthermore, the State argues that any error in admission was harmless because the content was already presented by other means. Notably, under La. Code Evid. art. 801(D)(2)(a), the Defendant's own statements are not classified as hearsay when offered against him, making the debate on hearsay exceptions irrelevant.
The Second Circuit referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in State v. Roshto, which established that evidence of false exculpatory statements can be used to infer guilt. The prosecution successfully demonstrated that the Defendant's claim of not knowing the victim and having no sexual contact with her was false, as confirmed by DNA evidence. The trial court's decision to admit these prior statements was therefore justified. The court found the Defendant's assignments of error unmeritorious, affirming the conviction and sentence, and instructed the trial court to notify the Defendant of La.Code Crim. P. art. 930.8 within ten days, with proof of notification to be filed in the record. Chief Judge Thibodeaux dissented, and it was noted that Dr. George McCormick, the coroner who conducted the autopsy, was deceased at the time of trial, as was Clint Thompson, a suspect in the initial investigation. Additionally, a letter indicating that Dr. Lagattuta identified bite marks on the victim as made by Thompson was ruled inadmissible hearsay after extensive pre-trial litigation.
