Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; September 22, 2010; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
James Edward Burns was convicted of second degree murder under La. R.S. 14:30.1 and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. He appealed the conviction, raising three assignments of error, but the court affirmed both the conviction and the sentence.
During the trial, evidence established that on September 29, 2007, Daisy May witnessed Burns and her aunt, Robertine May Burns, while being dropped off by a friend in Delhi, Louisiana. After Daisy asked Robertine to take her home to pick up a check, Burns drove past Daisy’s house towards Tallulah. Upon approaching a convenience store and spotting a police car, he abruptly left the parking lot and drove to Cow Bayou Road, where he parked and took the keys out of the car. Despite Robertine's insistence that everything had been fine, Burns suddenly produced a knife and began attacking her while seated in the front passenger seat. Daisy fled to a nearby house, where Shane and Eric Blake were present. They heard screams and witnessed Daisy running for help, prompting Shane to call the police and secure the area with a firearm.
Responding officers arrived within minutes of a 911 call and discovered a bloody knife, shoes, and Robertine lying injured on the roadside with severe wounds. They found Burns’ abandoned vehicle nearby, still running, with evidence of blood inside.
Damage to the landscape indicated the path taken by the car. Upon the ambulance's arrival, emergency responders used a spine board to transport Robertine’s body to the ambulance, where EMT James Marcus Todd confirmed her death by detecting no heart activity. Officer Brooks recounted hearing a voice and splash from Cow Bayou, leading to the discovery of James, who was subsequently arrested alongside Officer Neal Horath. Criminal investigator Officer James Rash obtained a statement from James after he waived his rights; however, a malfunction rendered the audio of the videotaped statement unusable. James claimed that Robertine attacked him with a knife, prompting a struggle, after which he hid the car in a grassy area, unaware that he had run over her.
Dr. Thomas Neumann, the Madison Parish Coroner, indicated that Robertine's injuries were consistent with being dragged under a vehicle. An autopsy by Dr. Steven Hayne revealed three non-lethal stab wounds, but the lethal injury was attributed to a nearly severed arm, which caused rapid blood loss due to tearing of the brachial artery. The autopsy concluded the manner of death as homicide, with the cause listed as a "pedestrian motor vehicle crash," specifying the laceration of major vessels in the right axilla. Detective Chad Heath Ezell examined the vehicle, documenting blood evidence both inside and outside the car, including on the door and passenger window.
Blood matching Robertine Burns' DNA profile was found on the inner side of the front passenger tire of a vehicle, with a probability of matching a random individual at one in 73.1 trillion. Kendal Stracner from the North Louisiana Crime Lab conducted the DNA analysis. Witness Raymond Myers testified that the day before Robertine's death, he overheard a man named James threatening to "kill the bitch" during a break while painting a house. Myers promptly informed Robertine’s family about the threat.
The trial also included testimony regarding a history of domestic abuse by James towards Robertine. East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Deputy Jason Broussard recounted an incident from April 2007, where Robertine reported that James had physically assaulted her in their home, resulting in visible injuries. Although James claimed the altercation was mutual, he was arrested for domestic abuse.
Robertine's daughter, Crystal May, confirmed witnessing her mother with injuries shortly after the incident. Assistant District Attorney Sandra Ribes testified about her interactions with Robertine regarding the domestic abuse case. Initially, Robertine expressed a desire to pursue charges, but later retracted her statement due to concerns about James' situation. Ultimately, after further harassment from James, Robertine requested that charges be filed against him in June 2007, but by September 2007, she was deceased.
James Burns was found guilty of second degree murder by a jury on September 4, 2009, and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence on September 22, 2009. In his appeal, Burns argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for a conviction. The appellate court's review process prioritizes evaluating the sufficiency of evidence before considering any trial errors, as established in Hudson v. Louisiana. The reviewing court assesses whether a rational juror could find that all elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, following the Jackson v. Virginia standard. The appellate court does not reassess witness credibility or reweigh evidence but defers to the jury's determinations. A single witness's testimony can suffice for a conviction unless there are contradictions or conflicts with physical evidence. When analyzing circumstantial evidence, it must exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence. Louisiana law defines second degree murder as the intentional killing of another person or the infliction of great bodily harm with intent.
To establish James Burns' guilt for second-degree murder, the state needed to prove he had the specific intent to kill or cause great bodily harm to Robertine May Burns. Burns argues the evidence was insufficient, citing the only witness, Daisy May, who admitted to using crack cocaine on the day of the incident and claimed she could not fully observe Robertine's actions from the back seat of the car. His second argument posits that the stab wounds were not the cause of death; instead, Dr. Hayne stated that Robertine died from being run over and dragged by the car. Burns contends he was unaware of running over his wife.
In contrast, the state asserts that Daisy May clearly witnessed Burns stabbing Robertine multiple times and that Robertine managed to escape the vehicle during the attack, as evidenced by blood found inside and outside the car. The evidence revealed that Burns, as the only one with the car keys, ran over Robertine, causing severe injuries that led to her death. Law enforcement arrived shortly after the 911 call and found Robertine severely injured near the car, with Burns later captured nearby.
The court concluded that the evidence presented was adequate to prove Burns' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as it indicated intent to kill or inflict significant harm. The testimony from Daisy May and the circumstances surrounding the incident supported the state's case.
Additionally, Burns' second assignment of error concerns the trial court's denial of challenges for cause against five prospective jurors. Under La. C. Cr. P. art. 797, jurors may be challenged for cause if they lack legal qualifications or are not impartial.
An opinion regarding a defendant's guilt or innocence alone is not sufficient to disqualify a juror if the juror asserts, and the court agrees, that they can remain impartial. Grounds for challenge include a juror's personal relationships that could reasonably influence their verdict, refusal to accept the law as instructed by the court, prior service on a grand or petit jury related to the case, or a demonstrated bias. The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on such challenges, with appellate reviews limited to instances of abuse of that discretion. Jurors do not need to be completely unfamiliar with the parties involved, but must be fair and unbiased. A juror's claim of impartiality is not definitive; if a relationship suggests potential bias, the juror can be dismissed. If a juror is deemed biased, they may still be rehabilitated if the court is convinced of their ability to render an impartial verdict. A connection to law enforcement does not automatically disqualify a juror, but requires careful examination. The defense claims that six challenges for cause were denied, particularly focusing on juror David Lowery, who is related to a law enforcement officer and expressed a bias toward that officer’s credibility. Despite this, the trial judge found Lowery could be fair based on his rehabilitation during questioning, citing precedent where similar familial connections were allowed in jury service.
Howard Carney, a farmer, expressed that serving on the jury would be a hardship due to crop harvesting and his son's divorce case in Mississippi, which involved local proceedings. The defense argued that Carney's potential bias against defense counsel, who represented the opposing party in his son's litigation, warranted a challenge for cause. However, the trial judge found Carney's hardship less significant than another juror's and denied the challenge.
Brent Fortenberry's financial interest in a detention center prompted a challenge for cause, as the defense claimed it could bias him. The judge acknowledged Fortenberry's interest but deemed it insufficient to grant the challenge.
Johnny Goss faced a challenge due to his friendships with law enforcement officers. The judge concluded that Goss could be fair and impartial, denying the challenge.
Tilford Watts, a teacher and constable, was also challenged for cause based on scheduling hardships and his past victimization by theft. The judge found his hardship insufficient and noted that his experiences did not affect his ability to serve, denying the challenge.
All five jurors maintained they could deliver a fair verdict despite their connections to the case, and the trial court found no abuse of discretion in denying the challenges for cause.
The defendant's third assignment of error pertained to the admission of testimony regarding prior crimes and bad acts by witnesses Jason Broussard, Crystal May, and Sandra Ribes. The defendant argued that the state failed to provide timely notice, as required by the Prieur ruling, prior to the jury selection on August 31, 2009.
The probative value of unrelated offenses must be balanced against their potential prejudicial impact. A hearing was held on September 4, 2009, to determine whether testimony from three witnesses regarding an April 2007 domestic abuse incident could be admitted during the trial of Robertine May Burns. The trial court deemed the testimony admissible under the Prieur rule, despite finding it was not res gestae. The defendant argued that his counsel was incompetent for failing to subpoena certain witnesses who could have rebutted the testimony of the three witnesses, and claimed that the state’s late filing of the Prieur notice hindered his ability to prepare for trial.
Citing State v. Blank, the court reiterated that evidence of other crimes is generally inadmissible for character impeachment unless it falls under specific exceptions outlined in La. C.E. art. 404(B)(1). The state must provide timely notice to the defendant regarding the introduction of prior crimes evidence. Although the state’s notice was filed late, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that not all procedural violations necessitate reversal, requiring the defendant to demonstrate actual prejudice. The court found that the defendant was aware of the potential introduction of other crimes evidence and did not object to the lack of notice. Additionally, he failed to show how his trial strategy would have differed with earlier notice. Consequently, the court determined there was no substantial risk of grave prejudice, affirming the defendant’s conviction and sentence.
