State of Louisiana v. Bridget Ebarb

Opinion

Judgment rendered November 10, 2020. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 53,536-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

BRIDGET EBARB Appellant

*****

Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 351763

Honorable Ramona L. Emanuel, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Meghan Harwell Bitoun

JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

JOSHUA K. WILLIAM ALEX L. PORUBSKY Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before GARRETT, McCALLUM, and BLEICH (Pro Tempore), JJ. BLEICH, J. (Pro Tempore)

The defendant, Bridget Ebarb, was charged by bill of information with

simple arson, a violation of La. R.S. 14:52. After a jury trial, the defendant

was found guilty as charged pursuant to a unanimous verdict. Defendant

was sentenced to three years at hard labor, suspended, with three years of

supervised probation and a $1,000 fine. For the following reasons, we

affirm.

FACTS

The record shows that at 1:10 a.m. on August 27, 2017, the

Shreveport Fire Department received a 911 call about a fire at 6801 West

70th Street in Shreveport. Captain Steven Wilkerson and Captain Michael

Hood testified at trial that they responded to the scene, observing flames and

thick black smoke coming from a window of the mobile home. Capt. Hood

was the fire investigator and was accepted at trial as an expert in the origin

and cause of fires. At the scene, Capt. Hood conducted audio recorded

interviews of the eyewitnesses and took photographs. The following is a

summary of the pertinent facts that Jesse Daugherty told Capt. Hood in his

recorded interview.

The mobile home belonged to Daugherty’s grandmother. Daugherty

had been living there with defendant, his girlfriend of two months, along

with some of their children from previous relationships. The couple had

broken up and defendant returned to the residence that evening to retrieve

some of her clothes. Defendant was accompanied by two men, Steven

Paintin and Eric Duvall, and she was heavily intoxicated. Daugherty,

Paintin, and Duvall remained on the porch outside talking while defendant

made trips inside to gather her belongings. After an argument, Daugherty told defendant to leave and return the

next day when she was sober. Defendant announced that she was going

back inside to get her cigarettes and her cell phone. Defendant returned a

couple of minutes later, and as she, Paintin, and Duvall entered their vehicle

to leave, a loud alarm sounded. Daugherty ran inside the house and found

that his clothes hanging inside the master bedroom closet were on fire.

Daugherty ran outside and yelled for Paintin and Duvall not to let defendant

leave because she had set his house on fire.

Daugherty called 911, then he, Paintin, Duvall, and defendant

attempted to extinguish the fire with water and a fire extinguisher. The fire

spread quickly and the smoke was heavy. Defendant insisted on returning to

the master bedroom to retrieve her phone but passed out from the smoke.

Daugherty’s statements as to these facts were consistent with the

statements made to Capt. Hood by Paintin and Duvall. Paintin was a friend

of defendant’s and had met Daugherty before. Duvall only met defendant

and Daugherty that night. Daugherty also told Capt. Hood that before

defendant entered the residence for the last time, she placed a white Bic

cigarette lighter in her back pocket and said that she needed to get her

cigarettes and cell phone from inside the residence.

Capt. Hood testified that from these interviews, he determined that

defendant was the only person in the house while she retrieved her

belongings and that she was the last person in the house before the fire alarm

sounded. From the burn pattern, Capt. Hood determined that the fire

originated where Daugherty’s clothes were hanging in the master bedroom

closet and that the fire was caused by a direct flame contact. Capt. Hood

testified that he searched the area where the fire originated for an ignition 2 source, which would have created an arc of electricity, a spark, or an open

flame, that could have started the fire that burned Daugherty’s clothes. Capt.

Hood testified that he found no accidental ignition sources within the area

and determined that the fire was ignited by a human act. Capt. Hood

classified the fire as an incendiary act and explained at trial that this meant

the fire was intentionally started.

Capt. Hood estimated the approximate value of the property loss to be

$10,000. The crime scene photos revealed that nearly everything in the

master bedroom and the areas nearby were damaged by fire, heat, smoke, or

water and were covered in soot and debris.

Capt. Hood testified that he found a package of Marlboro cigarettes, a

cell phone, a set of keys, and a white Bic cigarette lighter on the master

bedroom dresser, just three to four feet from the fire’s origin. He stated that

the deposits of soot and debris on these items established that they had been

situated in that spot when the fire started. Capt. Hood testified that the only

potential ignition source that he found within the area where the fire

originated was the white Bic cigarette lighter.

Capt. Hood testified that he advised defendant of her Miranda rights

before interviewing her at the scene because she was considered a suspect at

that point. Defendant acknowledged that the cell phone found near the

cigarette lighter on the master bedroom dresser was hers. When defendant

admitted that she had been drinking, Capt. Hood decided to end the

interview. Defendant was arrested at the scene and charged with simple

arson.

The trial testimony of Jesse Daugherty, Steve Paintin, and Eric Duvall

as to these facts was largely consistent with their prior statements to Capt. 3 Hood. At trial, Daugherty testified that he had warned defendant that she

had two weeks to gather her belongings and then he would change the locks.

He stated that she did not gather her things in that time period and he had

changed the locks of the residence on the day of the incident. Daugherty

testified that defendant was angry and drunk when she arrived, and she kept

pushing him and hitting him. Daugherty stated that he called 911 to report

that she was hitting him.

Daugherty testified that most of the personal items belonging to him

and his daughter were lost in the fire. Daugherty stated the Red Cross

provided him with a $300 voucher for clothing and that his daughter’s

school assisted with her uniforms. He testified that the insurance payment to

cover the loss of the mobile home went to his grandmother, as the owner,

but he had signed the lease for the lot; therefore, he had to continue paying

the lease fees even though the mobile home was destroyed.

Defendant testified at trial that two of her four children lived with her

in Daugherty’s trailer and that she and Daugherty did not break up until the

day of the incident. Defendant stated they had argued at the residence

earlier that day and discussed her moving out, then hours later she received a

text from him stating that he had changed the locks.

Defendant testified that many pieces of furniture in the house,

specifically in the bedroom, belonged to her and that she lost most of the

furniture and personal items belonging to her and her children in the fire.

Defendant stated that she only grabbed some of her things and none of her

children’s things, because she had planned to return later for the rest.

Defendant acknowledged in her testimony that the cell phone and

cigarettes found on the dresser near the fire’s origin belonged to her. When 4 asked whether the white Bic lighter found nearby also belonged to her, she

simply replied, “I don’t know.” Defendant testified that she did not recall if

she had her cigarette lighter with her on the porch, as Daugherty had stated.

Defendant asserted she did not know when the lighter was placed on the

dresser and did not know if that lighter was hers.

Defendant testified that she had gone back inside to get her cell phone

and cigarettes, but she did not retrieve them. When asked why she left the

residence without those items, she replied, “I don’t know.” Defendant

asserted that she did not start the fire.

Following the close of evidence, the jury found defendant guilty of

simple arson with damage of $500 or more. Defendant’s motion for post-

verdict judgment of acquittal was denied. At the time of sentencing, the trial

court stated it had reviewed the guidelines of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 and

several letters received on behalf of the defendant. Based on the totality of

the circumstances, the defendant’s lack of a significant criminal history and

her current parental duties, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve three

years at hard labor, suspended, with three years of supervised probation.

Additionally, the trial court imposed a fine of $1,000 and ordered defendant

to participate in substance abuse treatment, a mental health evaluation and

any mental health treatment recommended. Defendant was also ordered to

register as an arsonist with the state fire marshal under La. R.S. 15:562.3.

Defendant appeals her conviction.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the circumstantial evidence presented at trial was

insufficient to support the conviction. Defendant argues that the state did

not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed simple arson and 5 did not exclude her reasonable hypothesis of innocence that Jesse Daugherty

started the fire.

In considering the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing

court must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v.

Tate, 2001-1658 (La. 5/20/03), 851 So. 2d 921, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905,

124 S. Ct. 1604, 158 L. Ed. 2d 248 (2004); State v. Frost, 53,312 (La. App.

2 Cir. 3/4/20), 293 So. 3d 708.

The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or

reweigh evidence, and accords great deference to the trier of fact’s decisions

to accept or reject witness testimony in whole or in part. State v. Frost,

supra. Where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the

resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the

witnesses, the matter is one of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.

State v. Jackson, 53,497 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/20), 296 So. 3d 1156.

Direct evidence provides proof of the existence of a fact, for example,

a witness’s testimony that he saw or heard something. State v. Lilly, 468 So.

2d 1154 (La. 1985); State v. Wooten, 51,738 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/13/18), 244

So. 3d 1216. Circumstantial evidence provides proof of collateral facts and

circumstances, from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred

according to reason and common experience. Id. When the state relies on

circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a

crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and

the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of 6 innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Copeland, 52,742 (La. App. 2 Cir.

9/25/19), 280 So. 3d 848.

The Jackson standard is applicable in cases involving both direct and

circumstantial evidence. State v. Frost, supra. The facts established by the

direct evidence and inferred from the circumstances established by that

evidence must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a

reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of

the crime. State v. Jackson, supra.

Simple arson is the intentional damaging by any explosive substance

or the setting fire to any property of another without the consent of the

owner. La. R.S. 14:52(A)(1). Whoever commits the crime of simple arson

where the damage done amounts to $500 or more shall be imprisoned at hard

labor for not more than 15 years and fined not more than $15,000. La. R.S.

14:52(B).

In the present case, the conviction of simple arson turns largely,

although not solely, on circumstantial evidence, as there were no

eyewitnesses who actually observed defendant start the fire. The evidence

presented at trial established that defendant was the last person in the house

prior to the fire alarm sounding and the discovery of the fire. From the

evidence recovered at the scene, the fire investigator was able to exclude the

possibility that the fire was caused by accident and to determine that the fire

originated with Daugherty’s clothes being intentionally ignited by an open

contact flame. The investigator further determined that the white Bic

cigarette lighter, found a short distance away along with defendant’s cell

phone and cigarettes, was the only reasonable ignition source.

7 Defendant testified under oath that the cell phone and cigarettes were

hers, even as she claimed she did not know whether the lighter found at the

scene belonged to her. Defendant acknowledged that she had gone back into

the house to get her cell phone and cigarettes, but could not explain why she

left the house without them or why they were found on her dresser near the

cigarette lighter just a few feet from where the fire originated. Eyewitnesses

testified, and defendant did not dispute, that she was upset with Daugherty

and that she had been drinking. Daugherty stated that defendant was the last

person in the house before he heard the sound of the fire alarm.

The jury heard the testimony and weighed the credibility of the

witnesses. The verdict indicates that the jury found the testimony of the fire

investigator and Daugherty to be more credible than that of defendant.

Based upon the evidence contained in the record, the jury could have

reasonably inferred that defendant used the white Bic cigarette lighter to

intentionally set fire to Daugherty’s clothes in retaliation for him telling her

to leave the residence after their relationship ended. Thus, viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a

rational trier of fact could have rejected defendant’s claims of innocence and

found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a

reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the assignment of error lacks merit.

We have examined the record for error patent and found none.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s conviction and sentence are

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.