STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2025-KA-0284
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL JASON SPECHT * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******
APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 563-312, SECTION “G” Judge Nandi Campbell ****** Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Pro Tempore Dennis R. Bagneris)
Barry S. Ranshi The Barry S. Ranshi Law Firm LLC 4224 Florida Ave. Suite 6 Kenner, LA 70065
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
Jason R. Williams District Attorney Parish of Orleans Brad Scott Assistant District Attorney 619 South White Street New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR STATE/APPELLEE
AFFIRMED March 20, 2026 RLB DLD DRB Jason Specht (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction for aggravated
battery in violation of La. R.S. 14:34. He raised a defense of self-defense at trial
and on this appeal. He also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the
conviction. For reasons that follow, we affirm the conviction.
Proceedings below
The case was initiated by a bill of information on September 5, 2024. It was
tried to a jury on January 28, 2025. Appellant was convicted by unanimous verdict.
The judge imposed a sentence of three years (suspended) and two years of
probation. Appellant raises no issue regarding the sentencing in this appeal but
contests the jury’s guilty verdict.
Facts
Defendant is an artist who makes his living drawing caricatures on Jackson
Square in New Orleans. The victim, Emery Young (“Emery”)1 was spending the
day sightseeing in the French Quarter on April 14, 2024. He was accompanied by
1 The informality of designating members of the Young family by their first names is necessary
for the purpose of efficiently distinguishing these individuals who all share the same last name.
1 his wife, Arketha Bryant-Young (“Arketha”); his daughter, Jasmine Young
(“Jasmine”) and two of his grandchildren, “Emery III” and “Zoriana.”
At some point, Jasmine and Zoriana decided that they wanted to have a
caricature drawn of themselves. Jasmine sat first for her portrait. While Appellant
was drawing Jasmine’s caricature, Appellant engaged in a verbal altercation with a
bystander. Appellant was angry because the bystander was playing religious music
very near to his work area and he believed the music was driving customers away.
After Jasmine’s drawing was complete, Zoriana was seated for her caricature.
While Appellant was drawing, the bystander continued to play music. Appellant
asked Jasmine to talk to the bystander and convince him to stop playing the music
in his work area. Jasmine chose not to get involved in that dispute. In response,
Appellant stopped drawing and tore up the work that he had completed. Jasmine
became upset and began quarreling with Appellant.
Emery had been watching Jasmine and Zoriana from a bench nearby. When
he saw that things had gone awry, he walked over to the area where Appellant had
been working. Here, the recollections of Emery and Appellant diverge in opposite
directions.
Emery’s testimony
Emery testified that he placed himself between Jasmine and Appellant in
order to end the argument between them. He told Appellant, “we’re about to walk
away” and “[j]ust leave it alone.” Emery testified that after expressing his intent to
walk away, he turned his back to Appellant and started walking with Jasmine and
2 Zoriana. He said that Appellant pursued him and his family members and
continued to argue. At some point, Emery said, he turned around and grabbed
Appellant by the collar and asked, “did you hear what I said? . . . just walk away,
let it be.” When Appellant continued to follow closely behind him, Emery testified
that he turned and grabbed Appellant’s collar again. He testified that Appellant
struck him a couple of times before he realized he was being stabbed. Emery said
that when he realized this, he “punched [Appellant] a few times” and then someone
pulled him back. While Emery was being held back, Appellant stabbed him in the
groin and blood began “gushing out.”
Appellant’s testimony
According to Appellant, Emery was strangling him with his own shirt collar
and punching him before he drew his knife and began stabbing Emery. He
testified that he was in fear for his life and “had been pleading with Emery to,
don’t do this, let me go.” He claimed in testimony that he could not avoid fighting
because Emery would not let him go. He said, “if I hadn’t used the knife…he
would have continued to beat me until I was brain dead.”
The videotape
In addition to the witness testimony, there are three videos of the altercation.
A review of the videos shows fairly clearly that Appellant was pulling a knife from
his pocket before he was struck. It also shows that Emery was holding a piece of
Appellant’s shirt at the time but it does not appear that Emery was using the shirt
to strangle Appellant in the manner that Appellant testified.
3 There is no dispute that both men were injured in the altercation. Emery was
stabbed in the arm, abdomen, and groin. Appellant suffered a black eye and
testified that he had a concussion.
Assignment of error
Appellant makes a single assignment of error. He argues that the evidence
was constitutionally insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for aggravated
battery. Specifically, Appellant argues that the State failed to meet its burden of
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was not acting in self defense.
Standard of review
When a defendant asserts that the State has failed to meet its burden of
proof, an appellate court must review the record in its entirety to determine
whether the evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all
elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In making that
determination, courts must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution.” State v. Johnson, 2003-1228, p.4 (La. 04/14/04); 870 So.2d 995, 998
(citing State v. Sylvia, 01-1406, p. 2 (La. 4/9/03); 845 So.2d 358, 361); Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307.
Analysis and discussion
Before we reach the issue of sufficiency of evidence of self defense, we
must address the State’s argument that Appellant is precluded from arguing for a
finding of self defense in this appeal. The State argues that Appellant failed to
give timely notice of his intention to raise self defense as an issue at trial. La. C.
Cr. P. art. 390(B) requires a defendant to give notice of its intent to assert a
justification of self defense within 10 days after the State has moved for discovery.
4 However, a trial court may permit a defendant to provide notice of its intent at any
time before commencement of trial for good cause. In the case before us, the State
did not file a motion for discovery until January 27, 2025, the day before trial. By
contrast, Appellant filed a Motion to Include Jury Instruction for Self-Defense on
January 10, 2025. As Appellant gave notice of his intent before the State filed its
motion for discovery, the notice was timely. Appellant is entitled to have his
argument of self defense heard by this court.
“In any criminal proceeding in which the justification of self-defense is
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2025-KA-0284
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL JASON SPECHT * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******
APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 563-312, SECTION “G” Judge Nandi Campbell ****** Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Pro Tempore Dennis R. Bagneris)
Barry S. Ranshi The Barry S. Ranshi Law Firm LLC 4224 Florida Ave. Suite 6 Kenner, LA 70065
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
Jason R. Williams District Attorney Parish of Orleans Brad Scott Assistant District Attorney 619 South White Street New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR STATE/APPELLEE
AFFIRMED March 20, 2026 RLB DLD DRB Jason Specht (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction for aggravated
battery in violation of La. R.S. 14:34. He raised a defense of self-defense at trial
and on this appeal. He also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the
conviction. For reasons that follow, we affirm the conviction.
Proceedings below
The case was initiated by a bill of information on September 5, 2024. It was
tried to a jury on January 28, 2025. Appellant was convicted by unanimous verdict.
The judge imposed a sentence of three years (suspended) and two years of
probation. Appellant raises no issue regarding the sentencing in this appeal but
contests the jury’s guilty verdict.
Facts
Defendant is an artist who makes his living drawing caricatures on Jackson
Square in New Orleans. The victim, Emery Young (“Emery”)1 was spending the
day sightseeing in the French Quarter on April 14, 2024. He was accompanied by
1 The informality of designating members of the Young family by their first names is necessary
for the purpose of efficiently distinguishing these individuals who all share the same last name.
1 his wife, Arketha Bryant-Young (“Arketha”); his daughter, Jasmine Young
(“Jasmine”) and two of his grandchildren, “Emery III” and “Zoriana.”
At some point, Jasmine and Zoriana decided that they wanted to have a
caricature drawn of themselves. Jasmine sat first for her portrait. While Appellant
was drawing Jasmine’s caricature, Appellant engaged in a verbal altercation with a
bystander. Appellant was angry because the bystander was playing religious music
very near to his work area and he believed the music was driving customers away.
After Jasmine’s drawing was complete, Zoriana was seated for her caricature.
While Appellant was drawing, the bystander continued to play music. Appellant
asked Jasmine to talk to the bystander and convince him to stop playing the music
in his work area. Jasmine chose not to get involved in that dispute. In response,
Appellant stopped drawing and tore up the work that he had completed. Jasmine
became upset and began quarreling with Appellant.
Emery had been watching Jasmine and Zoriana from a bench nearby. When
he saw that things had gone awry, he walked over to the area where Appellant had
been working. Here, the recollections of Emery and Appellant diverge in opposite
directions.
Emery’s testimony
Emery testified that he placed himself between Jasmine and Appellant in
order to end the argument between them. He told Appellant, “we’re about to walk
away” and “[j]ust leave it alone.” Emery testified that after expressing his intent to
walk away, he turned his back to Appellant and started walking with Jasmine and
2 Zoriana. He said that Appellant pursued him and his family members and
continued to argue. At some point, Emery said, he turned around and grabbed
Appellant by the collar and asked, “did you hear what I said? . . . just walk away,
let it be.” When Appellant continued to follow closely behind him, Emery testified
that he turned and grabbed Appellant’s collar again. He testified that Appellant
struck him a couple of times before he realized he was being stabbed. Emery said
that when he realized this, he “punched [Appellant] a few times” and then someone
pulled him back. While Emery was being held back, Appellant stabbed him in the
groin and blood began “gushing out.”
Appellant’s testimony
According to Appellant, Emery was strangling him with his own shirt collar
and punching him before he drew his knife and began stabbing Emery. He
testified that he was in fear for his life and “had been pleading with Emery to,
don’t do this, let me go.” He claimed in testimony that he could not avoid fighting
because Emery would not let him go. He said, “if I hadn’t used the knife…he
would have continued to beat me until I was brain dead.”
The videotape
In addition to the witness testimony, there are three videos of the altercation.
A review of the videos shows fairly clearly that Appellant was pulling a knife from
his pocket before he was struck. It also shows that Emery was holding a piece of
Appellant’s shirt at the time but it does not appear that Emery was using the shirt
to strangle Appellant in the manner that Appellant testified.
3 There is no dispute that both men were injured in the altercation. Emery was
stabbed in the arm, abdomen, and groin. Appellant suffered a black eye and
testified that he had a concussion.
Assignment of error
Appellant makes a single assignment of error. He argues that the evidence
was constitutionally insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for aggravated
battery. Specifically, Appellant argues that the State failed to meet its burden of
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was not acting in self defense.
Standard of review
When a defendant asserts that the State has failed to meet its burden of
proof, an appellate court must review the record in its entirety to determine
whether the evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all
elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In making that
determination, courts must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution.” State v. Johnson, 2003-1228, p.4 (La. 04/14/04); 870 So.2d 995, 998
(citing State v. Sylvia, 01-1406, p. 2 (La. 4/9/03); 845 So.2d 358, 361); Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307.
Analysis and discussion
Before we reach the issue of sufficiency of evidence of self defense, we
must address the State’s argument that Appellant is precluded from arguing for a
finding of self defense in this appeal. The State argues that Appellant failed to
give timely notice of his intention to raise self defense as an issue at trial. La. C.
Cr. P. art. 390(B) requires a defendant to give notice of its intent to assert a
justification of self defense within 10 days after the State has moved for discovery.
4 However, a trial court may permit a defendant to provide notice of its intent at any
time before commencement of trial for good cause. In the case before us, the State
did not file a motion for discovery until January 27, 2025, the day before trial. By
contrast, Appellant filed a Motion to Include Jury Instruction for Self-Defense on
January 10, 2025. As Appellant gave notice of his intent before the State filed its
motion for discovery, the notice was timely. Appellant is entitled to have his
argument of self defense heard by this court.
“In any criminal proceeding in which the justification of self-defense is
raised, the state shall have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 390; State v. Wiggins, 56,
427, p. 9 (La. App. 2 Cir. 10/1/25), 421 So. 3d 1172, 1180.
Following the trial court’s jury instruction and considering the evidence
presented, the six-member jury reached a unanimous verdict rejecting Appellant’s
self defense justification. As noted above, this court must determine whether the
evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that Appellant did not
act in self defense. In making this determination, we must assess the evidence in
the light most favorable to the State. Therefore, we make the following catalog of
evidence that was available to the jury:
1. Emery testified that he attempted to extricate his family members and
himself from the disagreement with Appellant by using verbal de-escalation, and
physically walking away. He testified further that Appellant continued the verbal
sparring and physically kept himself in close contact with his victim. This evidence
alone can support a rational juror’s decision that Appellant was the aggressor in the
confrontation thereby depriving him of the defense of justification under La. R.S.
14:21, which provides that:
5 A person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict.
2. The videos that depicted the stabbing showed, fairly clearly, that Appellant
drew his knife from his pocket before Emery struck him. As our court held in State
v. Bracken, 2024-0208, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/5/25), 414 So. 3d 1039, 1043, “[i]n a
non-homicide case, the analysis of self-defense as a justification is a two-step
inquiry: (1) a subjective inquiry into whether the force was apparently necessary;
and (2) an objective inquiry into whether the force used was reasonable under the
circumstances.” (Citations omitted.) The videos alone could have convinced a
rational juror that the force used by Appellant was not reasonable.
3. Jasmine testified that Appellant initiated the hostilities by verbally sparring
with the bystander and tearing up the caricature for which Zoriana had posed. In
addition, both Jasmine and Arketha supported Emery’s assertion that he tried
repeatedly to remove the family from the dispute with Appellant and from
Appellant’s work area. Jasmine and Arketha both testified in agreement with
Emery that Appellant refused to let the disagreement go and that he followed the
family and continued the verbal harassment after the Youngs had taken active steps
to disengage. This testimony, taken in the light most favorable to the State,2 would
be sufficient to justify the jury’s determination that Appellant did not act in self
defense.
2 As required by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307.
6 Conclusion
The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that
rejected Appellant’s claim of self defense. We therefore affirm Appellant’s
conviction.
AFFIRMED