State v. Smith

Citation: 272 So. 3d 990Docket: No. 52,638-KA

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

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jeffery Sanchez Smith was convicted of manslaughter after initially being charged with second-degree murder in the 26th Judicial District Court, Bossier Parish, presided over by Judge John M. Robinson. Smith received a 38-year sentence of hard labor. The case stemmed from events on June 24, 2016, where Smith's girlfriend, Teresa Cooper, and her son Kaderrick Cooper provided key testimonies. 

Kaderrick testified about an argument between Teresa and Jeremy Davis, during which he heard a sound that resembled a gunshot. Jeremy sought refuge in Kaderrick's room, where Smith followed and brandished a chrome .38 pistol, ultimately shooting Jeremy in the back as he attempted to flee. Kaderrick noted he did not witness any physical struggle for the gun. 

Teresa corroborated that she was choked by Jeremy during an argument over a case of water, and that a gunshot was fired from the back of the house. She did not directly witness the shooting. Another witness, Jameisha Gilmore, observed Smith with a gun outside the house after the incident and heard him make a threatening remark about Jeremy. The court affirmed Smith's conviction and sentence based on the evidence presented.

Jameisha testified that she heard Defendant threaten Kaderrick, stating, "If you fuck with me I'll kill you too," before he began shooting at Theresa Cooper's house, prompting Jameisha's aunt to take her inside. Breanna Cooper observed Defendant, armed with a gun, walking towards her residence on June 24, 2016, where he stopped and fired multiple shots. Officer Matthew Camp encountered Defendant nearby, who claimed, "You'll never find it," when asked about the gun. Officer Michael Iman later questioned Defendant about the shooting, to which he replied that he had warned the victim to stop bothering him. After being read his Miranda rights, Defendant was handcuffed and transported, during which he made further statements that Officer Iman could not recall in detail. Detective Karen McDonald found Defendant already detained upon her arrival, informed him of his rights again, and noted that he reported a struggle over a gun with Jeremy, the victim. 

Dr. Frank Peretti, who performed the autopsy on Jeremy Davis, confirmed that a bullet was found in Jeremy's right hip and that the bullet's trajectory was unusual, indicating it entered his left shoulder without an exit wound, and no evidence suggested a close-range shooting. Dr. Peretti observed minor abrasions on Jeremy, likely from falling. Evidence collected from the scene included photographs of bullet holes and a projectile found in the Cooper home. A search warrant executed later revealed a duffle bag containing .38 caliber bullets in the master bedroom, along with additional photographic evidence. The items collected included multiple exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial.

Teresa identified the duffle bag and bullets as belonging to the Defendant, noting that five rounds were missing from a box of bullets. Photographs from investigations on June 25 and June 30, 2016, depicted the duffle bag's location and surrounding items. Carla White, a firearms examiner, confirmed that both the projectile found in Jeremy's hip and a bullet from the crime scene were .38 caliber. On May 3, 2018, a jury convicted the Defendant of manslaughter, resulting in a 38-year sentence following a pre-sentence investigation. The Defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to establish that Jeremy Davis's death resulted from his actions. He pointed to contradictions between eyewitness Kaderrick Cooper's testimony and Dr. Frank Peretti’s autopsy findings regarding the bullet's trajectory, as well as conflicting accounts of a struggle between Defendant and Jeremy. The State contended that the evidence, including eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, supported the manslaughter conviction. The appellate review standard requires evaluating evidence favorably to the prosecution, determining if a rational fact-finder could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court does not reassess evidence but relies on the trier of fact for credibility determinations, where conflicting testimony does not undermine the sufficiency of the evidence unless it conflicts with physical evidence.

In State v. Robinson, the appellate court reiterated that it cannot infringe on the factfinder's discretion unless necessary to uphold due process. It emphasized that appellate courts do not evaluate credibility or reweigh evidence. Second degree murder involves the intentional killing of a person, requiring specific intent to kill or inflict serious harm, which is inferred from the circumstances and the defendant's conduct. Manslaughter, defined under La. R.S. 14:31, occurs when a homicide that would qualify as murder is committed in sudden passion due to provocation or without intent to cause death during the commission of a felony or resisting lawful arrest. Sudden passion is considered a mitigating factor rather than an element of the offense. The appellate court must decide if a rational trier of fact could conclude that mitigating factors were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Physical threats from the victim can constitute sufficient provocation, but mere words or gestures cannot. In this case, the defendant was initially charged with second degree murder but was convicted of manslaughter, raising issues about inconsistencies between eyewitness accounts and physical evidence.

A rational trier of fact could find the elements of manslaughter proved beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. Teresa Cooper testified about an argument with her son Jeremy, during which he assaulted her. Their altercation was audible to her older son Kaderrick. The Defendant intervened by firing a gun and subsequently followed Jeremy into Kaderrick's bedroom, where they argued. Kaderrick noted Jeremy's history of violence and testified about the frequent arguments between the two men. Dr. Peretti provided crucial testimony regarding the trajectory of the bullet that struck Jeremy, suggesting that he may have been lying down or crouched during the shooting, contradicting Kaderrick's claim that the Defendant shot Jeremy as he fled. Teresa claimed there was a struggle between the two men, echoed by Dr. Peretti's findings. While the gun was not recovered, a box of matching bullets was found in the Defendant's bedroom, although he suggested they could have been planted. However, there was no evidence of tampering with the bag containing the bullets, and the officers had no reason to search the Defendant's bedroom initially. Overall, despite minor inconsistencies in testimonies, the evidence established that an argument occurred and that the Defendant shot Jeremy, leading to his death. The jury's manslaughter verdict indicated they believed the shooting occurred in a state of sudden passion. 

The Defendant raised a Sixth Amendment claim, alleging a violation of his right to a fair trial due to the State's failure to disclose information and witnesses, particularly regarding Officer Michael Iman's testimony. He argued that the late notice of this testimony, which included a damaging statement he made, compromised his defense, and he contended that the absence of this testimony would render the State's case insufficient for a conviction beyond justifiable homicide. Additionally, the Defendant noted that the State did not provide a 40-minute dash cam video during pre-trial discovery.

The rules of discovery aim to prevent surprise testimony, enabling the defense to adequately address the state's case and evaluate evidence strength. Noncompliance with discovery rules by the state does not automatically result in reversal; the defendant must demonstrate prejudice. Under La. C. Cr. P. art. 716(B), upon the defendant's motion, the district attorney must disclose the existence of any oral confessions or statements intended as evidence, detailing when, where, and to whom these were made. In State v. Thomas, the defendant argued that he was prejudiced by the state's failure to notify him of four inculpatory statements, which influenced his decision to reject a plea deal. However, the court found Thomas's claim speculative since he had been informed of the state’s witness list, which included individuals present during the incident.

During the trial, Officer Iman testified about a statement made by the defendant at the time of his arrest, though the defendant contested the lack of recorded evidence and the circumstances of his Miranda rights being read. The defense had filed a discovery motion requesting witness names and statements, and the state provided various evidentiary materials, including DVDs and videos. A motion regarding the voluntariness of the defendant's statements was filed prior to trial, and hearings were conducted to assess these statements, with the court ultimately ruling them freely and voluntarily given. The timing of the hearing did not, by itself, demonstrate prejudice against the defendant. Consequently, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.