State of Louisiana v. Dillion Wade Trahan AKA Dillon Wade

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: May 2, 2018
• Docket: KA-0017-1060
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

17-1060

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

DILLION WADE TRAHAN

AKA DILLON WADE

**********

APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. CR 150841 HONORABLE MARILYN C. CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

JOHN D. SAUNDERS JUDGE

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges.

AFFIRMED. Keith A. Stutes District Attorney, Fifteenth Judicial District J.N. Prather, Jr. Roger P. Hamilton, Jr. Assistant District Attorneys P. O. Box 3306 Lafayette, LA 70502-3306 (337) 232-5170 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: State of Louisiana

Edward K. Bauman Louisiana Appellate Project P. O. Box 1641 Lake Charles, LA 70602-1641 (337) 491-0570 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Dillion Wade Trahan SAUNDERS, Judge.

On May 27, 2015, Defendant, Dillion Wade Trahan aka Dillon Wade, was

charged by bill of indictment with the January 28, 2015 second degree murder of

Silas Tate, in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. On September 7, 2017, a jury found

Defendant guilty as charged. On September 14, 2017, Defendant was sentenced to

life imprisonment without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of

sentence, as required by La.R.S. 14:30.1.

Defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence, raising a single

assignment of error: the evidence introduced at trial is insufficient to support his

conviction for second degree murder.

FACTS:

Staff Sergeant Michael Hiatt of the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office testified

that he was a detective in the “crimes against persons unit” at the time Silas Tate

was killed. Sergeant Hiatt testified he was the on-call detective and was called out

with information that someone had been shot and there were witnesses and officers

on the scene. He stated that when he arrived at the scene Anthony Savoy and

Charlotte Broussard were attempting to transport Silas Tate to the hospital; Kelsey

Trahan, Dylan Guidry, and Steve Trahan, Jr. were in Steve Trahan, Jr.’s home; and

Steve Trahan, Sr. and Heather Trahan were in their home. Anthony, Charlotte,

Steve Trahan Sr., and Steve Trahan Jr., live in trailer homes near one another.

Sergeant Hiatt stated that Charlotte Broussard advised him that she had

given Anthony Savoy permission to use a trailer located on the Trahans’ property,

and that in the process of retrieving the trailer Anthony knocked down the Trahan’s

gate, which resulted in an altercation in front of Anthony’s trailer between her,

Anthony Savoy, Silas Tate, Steve Trahan Sr., Steve Trahan, Jr., Dylan Guidry, and

Defendant, during which time Heather Trahan made two 9-1-1 calls. Sergeant Hiatt testified that Charlotte advised him that at onset of the altercation Steve Sr. was

chasing her with a knife, then he began chasing Silas with it, that she heard gun

shots, and saw Silas fall. Initially Charlotte said the shots came from where Dylan

Guidry was standing, but later said that the shots came from where Defendant was

standing. She also stated that when Silas went down, Steve Sr., Steve Jr., and

Dylan Guidry were all in front of her and none of them had a gun.

The others involved in the altercation were also interviewed. However, the

statements given by those witnesses were either evasive, inconsistent, or later

recanted.

Sergeant Hiatt testified that Kelsey and Dylan’s stories changed over time.

Initially they both stated that they were inside their home when the altercation

occurred, had not seen anything, and neither recalled seeing Defendant that night.

Later Kelsey stated that Defendant could have been there, although she was not

certain. Whereas, Dylan later stated that both he and Kelsey had seen Dillion that

night.

Sergeant Hiatt testified he believed that the Trahan family was trying to

cover up Dillion’s involvement:

During my interviews with the family, it was a lot of trying to cover up where Dillion was. He wasn’t there. Then, some said he was there. Then, some said they never saw him. Some said he was camping. And so it was a bunch of misdirection from the family during the interviews. Steve Trahan, Sr.’s story changed repeatedly. Initially he stated that during

the altercation he was inside his home waiting on law enforcement, then he stated

that his involvement consisted of yelling at Anthony from across the yard, then he

stated that he was at Anthony’s during the altercation. He also stated that he was

unsure if Defendant was there, but subsequently stated that he had told Defendant

not to go to Anthony’s. Finally, he stated “he fucked up”, meaning Defendant.

2 Heather Trahan, Defendant’s mother, initially claimed that none of her

family had gone to Anthony’s, but the State introduced recordings of her 9-1-1-

calls that disprove that. In her initial 9-1-1 call regarding Anthony taking the

trailer, Heather tells law enforcement they needed to hurry up and get there before

“somebody is gonna really get badly hurt.” She also states that there are four

vehicles at Anthony’s: Anthony’s truck, Charlotte’s car, a black SUV, and a grey

car, but that she does not know to whom the last two vehicles belong. In her

follow up call to 9-1-1 Heather repeatedly stops speaking to the dispatcher so that

she can yell at people at the scene, at some point yelling at “Dillion” to quit and at

other times yelling at both “Dillion” and “Steve” to “get back here.” After the 9-1-

1 calls were played so that Heather could hear herself screaming at her sons,

Defendant and Steve Jr., she admitted people went to Anthony’s but still claimed

Defendant was not there; rather, she was screaming at Dylan Guidry. She later

admitted it may have been Defendant, as Dylan Guidry had never gone down to

Anthony’s.

Steve Jr., Defendant’s brother, denied that he shot Silas and began to cry

when asked whether Defendant had shot Silas. He did, however, place Defendant

at the scene.

The Defendant and his girlfriend Courtney, were located the following

morning at Courtney’s mother’s house. Initially Courtney stated that neither she

nor Defendant were present when Silas was shot. Later she admitted that

Defendant had dropped her off at her mother’s house for a while.

Lieutenant Drew Leblanc with the Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office

interviewed Dylan Guidry, who stated that he saw Dillion Trahan shoot Silas Tate.

Dylan Guidry’s statement was consistent with Charlotte’s. He stated that during

the altercation he saw Dillion Trahan break from the group, go down the fence 3 line, get into his vehicle, pull down the street, stop his vehicle, step outside of it,

take a shooter’s stance, fire two rounds in the direction of Anthony’s trailer,

scream for his girlfriend to get in the car, and flee the scene.

Detective Leblanc testified Defendant became a suspect based on the

consistent stories given by Charlotte Broussard and Dylan Guidry. Furthermore,

according to the witnesses, the only person with a firearm that night was

Defendant. The pathologist ruled out suicide; therefore, Silas Tate could not have

possessed the gun that shot him. As a result, there was sufficient evidence to

charge Defendant with the second-degree murder of Silas Tate.

Dr. Christoper Tape, a forensic pathologist, testified that the decedent’s body

had a gunshot wound in front of the external ear and right above the ear canal on

the temple. Furthermore, there was no strippling that means it was not a close

shot. Dr. Tape’s testimony corroborates the testimony of Dylan Guidry who stated

that Dillion Trahan shot Silas Tate and that Tate was shot in the head.

On September 7, 2017, a jury found Defendant guilty as charged. On

September 14, 2017, Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the

benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, as required by La.R.S.

14:30.1. On December 11, 2017, Defendant appealed his conviction.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

In his sole assignment of error, Defendant argues “[t]he evidence adduced at

trial was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder.”

Defendant’s argument is essentially that the State’s case is made up entirely of

circumstantial evidence, and the State failed to exclude “several reasonable

hypothes[e]s of innocence.”

The analysis for a sufficiency claim is well settled:

4 When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is 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, rehearing denied, 444 U.S. 890, 100 S.Ct. 195, 62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979), State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559 (La.1983); State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982); State v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981). It is the role of the fact finder to weigh the respective credibility of the witnesses, and therefore, the appellate court should not second guess the credibility determinations of the triers of fact beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review. See State ex rel. Graffagnino, 436 So.2d 559 (citing State v. Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 (La.1983)). In order for this Court to affirm a conviction, however, the record must reflect that the state has satisfied its burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Kennerson, 96-1518, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/97), 695 So.2d 1367, 1371.

Under La.R.S. 14:30.1, second degree murder is defined as the killing of a

human being “when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great

bodily harm.” As the fourth circuit recently noted in State v. White, 14-397, p. 17

(La.App. 4 Cir. 7/29/15), 174 So.3d 177, 189, writ denied, 15-1577 (La. 10/10/16),

207 So.3d 408 (footnote omitted), “to prove second degree murder the state must

prove the killing of a human being either with specific intent or when the offender

is engaged in one of the listed crimes.”

Defendant’s argument is that he was convicted based mostly on

circumstantial evidence as there was no direct evidence linking him to the

shooting. There was no positive identification, no indication he had a gun, no gun

residue test, and more importantly, no gun.” We note that this argument fails to

apply the Jackson standard of viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the prosecution.

As noted above, “[i]t is the role of the fact finder to weigh the respective

credibility of the witnesses, and therefore, the appellate court should not second

guess the credibility determinations of the triers of fact beyond the sufficiency 5 evaluations under the Jackson standard of review.” Id. Detective Hiatt introduced

the jury to Dylan Guidry’s claim that he saw Defendant get out of his car, shoot

twice towards Silas, then yell at his girlfriend to get in the car before speeding

away from the scene. Furthermore, Dylan confirmed he made those statements to

law enforcement at trial, though he recanted and claimed those statements were

made under threats from law enforcement. It is clear that at some point Dylan

Guidry lied about what happened the night Silas Tate was murdered. It was up to

the jury to decide whether he was lying when he said Defendant committed the

murder or when he claimed at trial that he never left the trailer and, therefore, had

no idea who shot Silas.

We recognize that the State’s case was based almost entirely on eyewitness

testimony, namely the testimony of Charlotte Broussard and the recanted statement

of Dylan Guidry, Defendant’s brother-in-law. The testimony presented to the jury,

primarily from Defendant’s family, was inconsistent with prior statements given by

themselves and with each other on various aspects. We find that in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

As this court has previously noted regarding an eyewitness who gave different

statements at different times:

Clearly, the jury was made aware of the witness’s lies but still found him credible regarding the offense. As the jurisprudence makes clear, a jury’s credibility assessment is not to be second-guessed on appeal. This court has only a cold record to analyze, while the jury was able to view the witness’s demeanor and hear the inflections in his voice.

State v. Kato, 12-1356, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/15/13), 157 So.3d 695, 700.

While the witness in Kato was a codefendant, the jury in the instant case was

presented with an eyewitness, Dylan Guidry, who admitted to telling law

enforcement that he saw Defendant get out of his car, shoot the victim, then drive

away. Although Dylan returned at trial to his original story of having never gone 6 outside during the whole incident, “the jury was free to believe or not to believe all

or part of [the witness’s] testimony.” State v. Dugar, 93-718, p. 13 (La.App. 3 Cir.

10/5/94), 643 So.2d 870, 878, writ denied, 94-2712 (La. 6/30/95), 657 So.2d 1019.

As this court noted in State v. Dyson, 17-21, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/17/17), 220

So.3d 785, 789, “the supreme court has established that positive identification by

one witness only is sufficient to support a conviction.” Viewing the evidence in

the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that a rational jury could have

decided Dylan was telling the truth when he identified Defendant as the shooter

rather than when he testified at Defendant’s trial. Given that Dylan’s story at trial

cannot be reconciled with Heather Trahan’s testimony and 9-1-1 calls, it is

reasonable for the jury to make such a decision on witness credibility.

We find that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, Dylan Guidry’s statement to law enforcement, which corroborates the

information Charlotte Broussard gave to law enforcement, is sufficient to support

Defendant’s conviction for the second-degree murder of Silas Tate.

CONCLUSION:

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s September 7, 2017,

conviction of Defendant for the charge of second degree murder.

AFFIRMED.