State v. Garnett

Citation: 266 So. 3d 330Docket: 18-61

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 22, 2019; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Julius Jamal Garnett appeals his conviction and life sentence for first degree murder following the death of Pamela Carnahan from stab wounds in her Alexandria, Louisiana apartment on May 9, 2014. DNA evidence linked Garnett to the crime scene. He was indicted on September 25, 2014, and after a mistrial in March 2016, a second jury found him guilty on July 14, 2016, by an eleven to one vote. His post-verdict acquittal motion was denied, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation, or sentence suspension.

Appellate counsel seeks to withdraw, citing no non-frivolous issues for review, following Anders v. California. Garnett raises two pro se claims: insufficient evidence for his conviction and a non-unanimous jury verdict, challenging compliance with Louisiana and U.S. constitutional requirements.

The court reviewed the record for patent errors and found none. In addressing the sufficiency of evidence, the court referenced established legal standards, emphasizing that the evidence must support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and noted that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The court maintained that it would not reassess witness credibility beyond determining the sufficiency of evidence as per the Jackson standard.

La.R.S. 15:438 outlines that the standard of review for appeals does not exceed the rational juror's reasonable doubt standard, serving primarily as guidance for juries evaluating circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court case State v. Neal clarifies that in identity cases, the state must eliminate any reasonable chance of misidentification, yet a single positive identification from one witness suffices for conviction, as seen in State v. Mussall and State v. Ford. The determination of witness credibility falls to the trier of fact, with reviewing courts only intervening to protect due process. 

The legal definitions relevant to the case include first degree murder (La.R.S. 14:30) as a homicide with specific intent during certain felonies, armed robbery (La.R.S. 14:64(A)) as taking property through force or intimidation while armed, aggravated burglary (La.R.S. 14:60) as unauthorized entry into an inhabited dwelling with intent to commit a felony while armed, and aggravated rape (La.R.S. 14:42) as non-consensual sexual intercourse under specific coercive circumstances. An attempt (La.R.S. 14:27(A)) is defined as taking steps toward committing a crime with intent, regardless of whether the crime could be accomplished.

In the case at hand, witness Karen Frazier, sister-in-law of the victim, testified about receiving a call from the bus driver regarding the victim's absence at the bus stop. She, along with her family, retrieved the child and later went to the victim's apartment, where they received no response after knocking on the door, leading Frazier to return home while her parents remained with the child until the husband could arrive.

Frazier's testimony was corroborated by their father, Winston Carnahan, who recounted retrieving a key to the apartment from Daniel's second job. Winston stated that Daniel initially attempted to give him the key but opted to leave work early and accompany them back to the apartment. Upon arrival, Daniel unlocked the door and found Pamela's body, prompting them to call 9-1-1. Daniel testified that he, Pamela, and their daughter lived in Apartment 404 at Chateau Deville Apartments. On the morning of the incident, he took Pamela and their child to the bus stop before working as a custodian at Pineville High School. Throughout the day, he made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact Pamela. After finishing work at around 4:00 p.m., he learned from his parents that Pamela had not picked up their child, leading him to return to their apartment where he discovered Pamela deceased.

Officer Cherie Silas arrived at the crime scene at approximately 5:40 p.m. and observed blood prints outside the door. Inside, she found Pamela lying in a pool of blood. Detective Wade Bourgeois testified that an empty Atlas-brand condom wrapper and a broken knife handle were found near Pamela's body, which exhibited multiple stab wounds. These items were collected as evidence, and a search warrant was executed for Defendant's Apartment 410, where Pamela's keys and wallet were found to be missing. Lieutenant William Bates detailed that bloody footprints matching the shape of Air Force Ones were found at the scene, and photographs of the crime scene were submitted into evidence. During the autopsy, a bite mark on Pamela's hand was discovered, which was swabbed for DNA analysis. The condom wrapper, knife handle fragments, and a blue latex glove were also collected for forensic testing.

Dr. Candace Jones, an expert in forensic DNA analysis, conducted DNA analyses on various evidence items, including a condom wrapper, knife handle, latex glove, and bite mark. Her results identified Pamela as the major DNA contributor on the condom wrapper, with two unidentified minor contributors, while excluding Michael Fells and Don Mosley as contributors. Similar findings were observed for the latex glove and knife handle, where Pamela was again the major contributor, and Fells and Mosley were excluded. Dr. Jones noted that DNA from a victim's blood could dominate in a struggle, and she submitted the minor contributors' DNA to CODIS, which linked the swabs from the latex glove and knife handle to the Defendant. However, no definitive conclusions could be drawn about the Defendant's involvement with the condom wrapper's DNA due to its complexity. A Y-chromosome test on the bite mark indicated a paternal profile matching the Defendant or his paternal line.

Lieutenant Bates testified that a search warrant executed at Defendant's suspected residence, apartment 410 on Lakeside Drive, yielded blue latex gloves, Atlas-brand condoms, and Defendant's identification. Vernechor Garnett, Defendant's sister, claimed the apartment was hers and clarified that while Defendant listed it as his residence for probation, he did not live there full-time. She acknowledged he would stay occasionally and kept some clothing there. She stated that Tavius, her brother, had condoms in the apartment and that she used blue latex gloves for cleaning. Another defense witness, Nedra Dotson, confirmed that Defendant did not have a twin brother, emphasizing the uniqueness of DNA except in identical twins.

Dr. Christopher Tape, a forensic pathologist, performed Pamela's autopsy and determined she died from fourteen stab wounds, classifying the death as homicide. He noted no genital injuries but indicated the possibility of injuries from consensual or non-consensual sex. A circular injury resembling a bite mark was found on Pamela's hand, inflicted before her death. Based on this evidence, the jury found sufficient grounds to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was responsible for Pamela's killing.

The jury found sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the Defendant committed first-degree murder during the commission of other felonies, specifically attempted aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, and armed robbery. Although the Defendant could not be definitively identified as a contributor to the DNA on the condom wrapper, DNA linked him to a latex glove and knife handle found nearby, suggesting the condom wrapper belonged to him. This evidence implies an attempt at a sexual act while armed with a knife, supporting aggravated rape under Louisiana law. Additionally, the disappearance of the victim's apartment keys and wallet indicates a theft, further justifying conclusions of armed robbery and aggravated burglary.

The Defendant's first pro se assignment of error was deemed without merit. In the second assignment, the Defendant argued that the jury's verdict was not unanimous as required by the Louisiana Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. However, this issue was not raised during the trial, thus cannot be considered on appeal. Louisiana law allows for a jury of twelve, requiring ten votes for a verdict, which has been upheld constitutionally.

Finally, the appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw under the Anders procedure, stating there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The court will independently review the record to ensure proper legal procedures were followed, including the validity of charges, jury composition, and legality of the sentence, before acting on the motion to withdraw.

Under C.Cr. P. art. 914.1(D), the court can supplement the appeal record with necessary documents when the existing record is inadequate for review. In *State v. Sanders*, the court clarified that while appellate counsel need not detail every meritless objection from trial, they must ensure the defendant's constitutional rights are upheld. The Anders brief must include a thorough review of procedural history and trial evidence, assessing whether an appeal is worthwhile. In this case, appellate counsel identified no non-frivolous issues, focusing on the State's use of a written report instead of unavailable video evidence, which was deemed harmless as it did not impact the verdict. The court confirmed that the defendant was properly indicted and represented throughout the proceedings, and found the pro se claims to be without merit. Consequently, the court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence and granted counsel's motion to withdraw.