Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 13, 2018; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Defendant Christopher Weston was found guilty by a unanimous jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and attempted second degree murder. He received a 30-year sentence for the attempted murder charge and a 15-year sentence for firearm possession, with both sentences running consecutively and without benefits. The incident occurred on May 8, 2016, when Weston shot Lakordo Jamerson after accusing him of stealing a cigarette.
Jamerson testified that he was at a gas station with his siblings when he was confronted by Weston after he left the store. Following a brief discussion about cigarettes, Weston returned to his vehicle. Later, Jamerson learned Weston was looking into his brother's car with a gun. When Jamerson exited the house to investigate, he saw Weston in a Ford Explorer, who then began shooting. Jamerson estimated that between 15 and 17 rounds were fired, and during the chaos, he attempted to protect his four-year-old niece, ultimately getting shot in the process. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences.
Jamerson recounted being shot while running with his phone, describing the incident as violent enough to throw him upwards and cause his phone to land under another vehicle. He was first hit in his arm, with the bullet traveling into his back, where it remains lodged, posing a risk of paralysis. He described severe injuries, including visible bone and significant blood loss, and expressed gratitude for surviving, especially as a father of three. After a two-week hospitalization, he now experiences numbness in his right leg and is unable to work.
During testimony, Jamerson identified a box of "Kool short" cigarettes presented as evidence, which he purchased on the day of the shooting. He had no prior knowledge of the Defendant and characterized their interaction at the store as inconsequential. He identified the Defendant as the shooter but avoided making direct eye contact.
On cross-examination, Jamerson clarified that no threats were made during their store encounter. He identified the shooter’s vehicle as a white Ford Explorer with a flat tire and recalled seeing two occupants, including a driver with a ponytail. He described the gun used by the Defendant as resembling a "Draco" or "Chopper" and confirmed that the Defendant was the person with the weapon. Jamerson noted that the shots were fired from the stationary vehicle’s passenger side without any verbal exchanges from its occupants. He was unable to see the vehicle leave after being shot.
Jamerson maintained a clear memory of the event, denying the use of drugs or alcohol, and stated he was not on medication at the time. He did not understand the motive behind the shooting and had not seen the Defendant again until he identified him in a photographic lineup shown to him three days after his release from the hospital. He clarified that he was not in a condition to identify the assailant during an earlier lineup conducted while hospitalized and confirmed that detectives did not suggest any specific photographs to him.
Daniel, Jamerson's older brother, provided significant corroboration of Jamerson's account regarding an incident at a store involving a Defendant who accused Jamerson of stealing a cigarette. Daniel identified the Defendant as a stranger he saw leaving the store and recalled a conversation between Jamerson and the Defendant about cigarette brands. He noted that the Defendant's vehicle, described as a white Jeep or SUV with a flat tire, was parked at a gas pump where the Defendant made a phone call.
After leaving the store, Daniel confirmed that Weeks asked him and Jamerson about a man following her. They observed the same vehicle with the flat tire, and Daniel testified that he saw the Defendant enter the back of the vehicle with a firearm resembling an AK-47. He estimated he was about three feet away when the Defendant fired shots, striking Jamerson. Daniel attempted to flee but was hit by a bullet in his car. He later found Jamerson on the ground after picking him up, noting the Defendant's vehicle had disappeared.
Daniel identified the Defendant from a photographic lineup and clarified that the initial conflict at the store was purely verbal. On cross-examination, he described the Defendant's vehicle as a typical four-door with a low tire and acknowledged a second person in the vehicle at Weeks's house. He characterized this individual as a medium-toned black male. Daniel emphasized that the gunfire was unprovoked. Weeks corroborated the events, indicating she saw the same vehicle shortly after leaving the store and was confused about the situation upon arriving home.
Weeks reported that after Jamerson, Daniel, and Alexis exited her home, a car sped away, turned around, and returned. Alexis warned Weeks that the occupants had a gun, prompting her to take her children inside. She testified that shortly thereafter, gunfire erupted, and she discovered a bullet casing the next day in a back room of her house, which she discarded. Although Weeks viewed a photographic lineup, she could not identify the shooter. On cross-examination, she mentioned her roommate found a shell casing in the back bedroom the following day. Weeks heard approximately 15 shots but did not witness the shooter from the vehicle. She confirmed no shots originated from her house, despite people being on the porch during the incident. Weeks did not notice the white vehicle trailing her from the store but recognized it as the same one she saw earlier. Detective Marlon Clark investigated the shooting that occurred on May 8, 2016, at 2210 Queen Street, where a victim sustained serious injuries. He reviewed surveillance footage from a nearby store showing Weeks, Daniel, and Jamerson conversing before a heavyset black male with short dreadlocks entered the store. The video revealed no physical altercation and showed the same white Ford Explorer returning to the area later. Clark noted that he received incorrect footage from a CSI detective and had it marked with the case number for reference. He also interviewed Jamerson at the hospital, who was in severe pain and unable to provide details. Jamerson indicated that the man from the store was the shooter. Daniel, interviewed on the same day, claimed he had not previously seen the man. Weeks later, Clark identified the defendant as the shooting suspect based on a photograph that matched the store video footage.
A six-person photographic lineup was created and presented to Jamerson at Weeks's house, where he identified Christopher Weston as the suspect, specifically recognizing image number four. Additionally, Daniel also identified Weston as the individual who fired from the vehicle, although both witnesses viewed the lineup separately and at different times. Det. Clark prepared an arrest warrant for Weston on charges of attempted second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, verifying his prior felony conviction in Caddo Parish through case docket number 282,184. The conviction stemmed from a guilty plea on September 23, 2010, for attempted illegal carrying of weapons while in possession of controlled dangerous substances (CDS). The court sentenced Weston to a $2,000 fine, 60 days in parish jail, and five years of hard labor for count one, and two years of hard labor for count two, with sentences running concurrently and credit for time served. The court also ordered forfeiture of money and weapons.
Det. Clark contacted the U.S. Marshal's task force to locate Weston and received information about Jacorey Smith, who was not present in the store video. U.S. Marshals investigated a Lincoln Town Car linked to a house on DeSoto Street, which they suspected was associated with Weston. After stopping the vehicle, they arrested Weston, who was later identified in court. Following his arrest, a search warrant was executed at Smith's DeSoto Street residence, revealing two firearms, including a 7.62 caliber rifle, which Clark described as an AK-47 variant, known as a 'Draco' or 'Chopper.' The rifle was entered into evidence, though it was not fingerprinted due to the unlikelihood of obtaining usable prints from its surface.
No DNA analysis was conducted on the rifle linked to the case. Det. Clark testified that no shell casings or projectiles were found at the crime scene, in the house, or in the vehicle involved, although fragments were found in the victim. He confirmed that the rifle was not processed for fingerprints or DNA, leaving it unconnected to the shooting, and acknowledged the possibility that it may not have been the firearm used. Det. Clark also noted he was unaware of a shell casing found in Weeks's house the following day and that her residence was never searched. He described video footage showing a black male near a white Explorer, but the video, which lacked a license plate view, was no longer available for review. He had no evidence connecting the Defendant to the DeSoto Street house where the rifle was discovered.
Officer Roderick Lewis responded to a traffic stop involving a vehicle with switched tags, which was already under U.S. Marshals' surveillance. During the stop, one passenger identified himself as Christopher Weston, who was wanted for attempted murder. On cross-examination, Officer Lewis confirmed he was not involved in the investigation of the May 8, 2016, events.
Carla White, a firearms expert, examined a 7.62x39 millimeter rifle marked as Exhibit S-9, confirming it was a Century Arms model but not an AK-47, despite the common misconception that all firearms of this caliber are AK-47s. She noted that no projectiles were submitted for testing, and she did not fingerprint the weapon due to the difficulty posed by its surface. White stated she could not determine if the firearm had been fired and confirmed that no DNA analysis was performed on it during its time at the crime lab.
Officer Danny Duddy, a certified expert in fingerprint identification and supervisor of the crime scene investigation unit, testified regarding the Defendant's fingerprints linked to case docket number 282,184. He confirmed that the fingerprints taken in court matched those from the case. The defense rested without calling witnesses, and the jury returned unanimous verdicts on both counts. Following the verdict, the Defendant filed a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. Defense counsel waived sentencing delays, leading to consecutive sentences of 30 years for attempted second degree murder and 15 years for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, both without benefits of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, along with a $1,000 fine.
The jury found that the Defendant's use of a firearm during the attempted murder was established by clear and convincing evidence. After the trial court denied motions to reconsider the sentence, the Defendant appealed, raising two errors: insufficient evidence for the murder conviction due to unreliable witness testimony, and the constitutionally excessive nature of the sentences, arguing they were disproportionate and did not consider mitigating factors. The state countered that eyewitness accounts supported the conviction, demonstrating the Defendant's specific intent to kill, and defended the sentences as appropriate given the crime's viciousness, the suffering inflicted on the victim, and the Defendant's extensive criminal history. The appellate review standard for sufficiency of evidence requires assessing whether, viewing the evidence favorably for the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find the crime's elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
La. C. Cr. P. art. 821 establishes that appellate courts cannot replace the fact finder's evaluation of evidence and do not assess witness credibility or reweigh evidence. Great deference is given to the fact finder's acceptance or rejection of witness testimony, particularly in cases of conflicting evidence where credibility is at issue. A single witness's testimony can support a factual conclusion if believed, and for the state to secure a conviction, it must negate reasonable misidentification probabilities when the defendant's identity as the perpetrator is questioned. For attempted second degree murder, the state must demonstrate the defendant's intent to kill and an overt act towards that goal, with specific intent to kill being requisite, as opposed to merely intending to inflict harm. Specific intent can be inferred from circumstances and the severity of the victim's injuries, with multiple gunshot wounds indicating such intent.
Additionally, La. R.S. 14:95.1 makes it unlawful for certain convicted felons to possess firearms. A conviction for possession requires proof of firearm possession, a prior felony conviction, absence of a ten-year limitation period, and general intent to commit the offense. General intent exists if the offender reasonably anticipated the criminal consequences of their actions. A defendant can be convicted of both attempted second degree murder and firearm possession in the same incident. The evidence, when viewed favorably for the state, sufficiently supports both convictions.
Eyewitness accounts from Jamerson and Daniel identifying the Defendant as the shooter are deemed credible and sufficient to support the charges against him. Both witnesses had a clear view of the Defendant and a vehicle, a white Ford Explorer, shortly before the shooting. They were able to confirm details about the vehicle and the Defendant's appearance, which the jury reasonably accepted. Their reliability is further supported by their independent identifications of the Defendant from separate photographic lineups weeks later. Testimonies from Weeks and Det. Clark corroborate that the vehicle observed at the store matched the one at the shooting scene. Any inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies were not significant enough to undermine the identification of the Defendant as the shooter. The jury could infer the Defendant's intent to kill Jamerson based on the circumstances of the shooting and his pursuit of Jamerson following a verbal altercation. Additionally, the eyewitness accounts support the conclusion that the Defendant possessed a firearm, and his prior felony conviction in 2010 fulfills the requirements for the firearm possession charge.
Regarding the excessive sentence claim, the appellate court applies a two-prong test. The trial court must demonstrate compliance with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, considering factors like the defendant's history, the seriousness of the offense, and the potential for rehabilitation without needing to list every factor. The appellate court must then assess whether the sentence is constitutionally excessive, which would mean it is grossly disproportionate to the crime or inflicts unnecessary suffering. A trial court has wide discretion in sentencing within statutory limits, and its decisions are not easily overturned absent an abuse of discretion. The trial court is best positioned to evaluate the case's aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and appellate courts should refrain from substituting their judgment regarding sentence appropriateness unless specifically warranted.
When multiple convictions stem from the same act or a common scheme, Louisiana law mandates that sentences be served concurrently unless the court specifies otherwise. The trial court has the discretion to impose consecutive sentences if justified by the offender's criminal history or circumstances indicating a significant risk to public safety. Factors influencing this decision include the severity of the offenses, the harm caused to victims, the defendant's previous criminal behavior, and the potential for rehabilitation. A presentence investigation report is not a right, and its absence does not necessitate a remand if sufficient factual support exists in the record for consecutive sentences.
In this case, the defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, with additional findings related to the use of a firearm causing bodily injury. During sentencing on December 14, 2017, the trial court evaluated various sentencing factors under Louisiana law, including the risk of reoffending, the need for correctional treatment, and the seriousness of the crime. Aggravating factors considered included the deliberate cruelty exhibited during the offense, the significant and lasting harm to the victim, and the broader risk posed to bystanders during the shooting. The trial court noted the victim's emotional distress and the severe, permanent injuries sustained.
The trial court found that the Defendant committed an offense involving a dangerous weapon and physical violence, determining that no mitigating circumstances were present and considering the Defendant's prior criminal history. The court classified attempted second-degree murder as a violent crime under La. R.S. 14:2(B) and sentenced the Defendant to 30 years at hard labor without parole, probation, or suspension for attempted second-degree murder, and 15 years for firearm possession, with both sentences imposed consecutively. Additionally, the Defendant was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $50 for each count to the public defender.
On January 3, 2018, the Defendant filed a pro se motion to reconsider the sentence as excessive, followed by a counseled motion on January 4, 2018, asserting the trial court's aggravating factors were inadequate and that mitigating factors were not fully considered. The trial court denied these claims on January 11, 2018, stating that the sentences were not excessive and complied with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The court determined that the Defendant's actions, which included a violent pursuit of the victim and endangered bystanders, demonstrated a disregard for human life, particularly concerning children.
Despite the absence of a presentence investigation report, the record showed the Defendant's previous gun- and drug-related convictions, and a failure to benefit from prior leniency. The court's reasons for consecutive sentencing were supported by the dangerous nature of the offenses, the impact on victims, and the Defendant's criminal history. Ultimately, the aggregate 45-year sentence was deemed appropriate and not shockingly disproportionate to the crimes committed.
The convictions and sentences of Christopher Weston are affirmed. Testimony confirmed that the shooting took place at Weeks's house in Shreveport, and the defense's objection to the introduction of a gun as evidence was overruled by the trial court based on relevant testimony identifying the gun as an AK-47. This evidentiary issue was not raised on appeal. The prosecution presented evidence of the defendant's fingerprints on documents related to prior convictions for attempted illegal carrying of weapons and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Although a gun matching the shooting description was found afterward near a location associated with Weston, this circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish constructive possession, as mere presence in the vicinity of contraband does not prove control. Louisiana law requires clear and convincing evidence of actual possession of a firearm during the felony for conviction purposes. The jury's finding that Weston discharged a firearm causing bodily injury was recognized by the trial court. For attempted second degree murder, Weston faced a sentencing exposure of 10 to 50 years, with an increased minimum of 15 years due to the injury caused. However, the trial court incorrectly applied sentencing provisions related to crimes of violence, mistakenly imposing a minimum sentence of 20 years instead of recognizing that attempted second degree murder is not categorized as such. This error was deemed harmless as the sentence exceeded the minimum. For the felon in possession of a firearm conviction, the trial court did not specify the sentencing range but indicated a fine of $1,000 to $5,000, with a range of 10 to 20 years at hard labor without benefits.
