State Of Louisiana v. Kenya Avanti Despenza

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State Of Louisiana v. Kenya Avanti Despenza

DecidedFebruary 19, 2021

Docket2020KA0389

StatusUnknown

This text of State Of Louisiana v. Kenya Avanti Despenza (State Of Louisiana v. Kenya Avanti Despenza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Of Louisiana v. Kenya Avanti Despenza, (La. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2020 KA 0389

VERSUS

KENYA AVANTI DESPENZA

Judgment Rendered. FEB 1 9 2021

Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court

In and for the Parish of St. Tammany State of Louisiana Case No. 607736

The Honorable Vincent J. Lobello, Judge Presiding

Bertha M. Hillman Counsel for Defendant/ Appellant Covington, Louisiana Kenya Avanti Despenza

Warren L. Montgomery Counsel for Appellee

District Attorney State of Louisiana J. Bryant Clark, Jr. Matthew Caplan Assistant District Attorneys Covington, Louisiana

BEFORE: THERIOT, WOLFE, AND HESTER, JJ. THERIOT, J.

The defendant, Kenya Avanti Despenza, was charged by grand jury

indictment with second degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 30. 1. She pled

not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. Following a jury trial, she was

found guilty as charged by unanimous verdict. She moved for a post -verdict

judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, but the motions were denied. She was

sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation,

or suspension of sentence. She now appeals, challenging the denial of her motion

for a new trial. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

FACTS

On July 28, 2018, the defendant was living with the victim, Diane Bercy, her

aunt, at the victim' s duplex in Slidell. Sometime between that date and July 29,

2018, the defendant killed the victim by stabbing her fifty-six times. The victim

suffered defensive wounds on her hands during the fatal attack.

After stabbing the victim, the defendant wrapped the victim' s body in a

comforter and other bedding and fled the scene in the victim' s vehicle with the

victim' s wallet, purse, and checkbook. The defendant drove to church and then to

the emergency room of University Medical Center. She claimed she had run out of

her medications, was having hallucinations, and was there for the Ocean Task Force

to build " Trump' s wall damn [ sic]." She was admitted to a psychiatric hospital,

where she claimed she could hear angels talking, but " couldn' t really make out what

they were saying." The psychiatric hospital subsequently released the defendant to

police custody after finding " with a high degree of medical certainty[,] [ the

defendant] is feigning or exaggerating signs and symptoms of mental illness to

prevent incarceration."

01 At trial, Dr. Brannan Wiedemann was accepted as an expert in the field of

forensic psychiatry. He was appointed to examine the defendant and provide his

opinion as to whether or not she was insane at the time of the offense.

In regard to the stabbing of the victim, the defendant told Dr. Wiedemann that

the victim was actually " Lionel," who had put her aunt' s skin on him like a skin

condom. The defendant claimed Lionel knew she had 4. 2 million dollars because she

was Beyonce, and he managed her money. The defendant complained that Lionel

kept talking about how [ the defendant] was overweight," and had " cut the lights off

and the phone bill off during the day." The defendant claimed she rolled up the

victim in a blanket because she wanted to take her to church and then to the hospital,

but the victim was too heavy.

Dr. Wiedemann found the defendant had bipolar type 1 disorder with

psychotic features per her history. He also found the defendant " demonstrated signs

of [malingering]." He added:

I am suspect or suspicious that [ the bipolar disorder] could be substance induced, but all though [ sic] [ the defendant] may have that I don' t feel that she was in the midst of a manic episode at the time, and I don' t feel or believe that the evidence suggests that she wouldn' t be able to tell right from wrong at the time of the crime.

In April of 2016, in an unrelated incident, the defendant stabbed her stepfather

three times.

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

In her sole assignment of error, the defendant contends the trial court erred in

denying her motion for a new trial. She claims the trial court erroneously overruled

her objection to the playing of a redacted version of her statements against interest at

trial. She also claims the trial court erroneously allowed the State to mischaracterize

evidence at trial and to personally attack defense counsel during rebuttal. Lastly, the

defendant argues La. C. Cr.P. art. 771 required an admonition following the

challenged rebuttal.

3 Playing of redacted fail calls

Pursuant to La. R.S. 15: 450, "[ e] very confession, admission or declaration

sought to be used against any one must be used in its entirety, so that the person to be

affected thereby may have the benefit of any exculpation or explanation that the

whole statement may afford." State v. Pierre, 2012- 0125 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 9/ 21/ 12),

111 So. 3d 64, 69, writ denied, 2012- 2227 ( La. 4/ 1/ 13), 110 So.3d 139.

At trial, the State indicated that although it would introduce the entirety of the

jail calls" into evidence, it only intended to publish portions of the jail calls to the

jury. The State argued it should be able to publish what it deemed relevant evidence

on direct examination, and the defense " would have the opportunity to publish

whatever] relevant evidence or the entirety of the jail call if necessary." The State

indicated it was interested in publishing the portion of the jail calls between the

defendant and her mother that " tend[ ed] to negate the not guilty by reason of insanity

defense[,]" rather than any discussions on the calls about recipes, making dinner, and

letters the defendant was writing to her mother. The defense argued La. R.S. 15: 450

and fundamental fairness required that the jail calls be played in their entirety " for the

purposes of exculpation or context[.]"

The trial court noted that the statements against interest were not a confession

or admission of guilt about the second degree murder of the victim, but rather

concerned " something occurring afterwards regarding [ the defendant' s] plans of

defense[.]" The court found that, in any event, placing the whole voice tape into

evidence satisfied La. R.S. 15: 450. The court further found the declaration against

interest was only a small portion of the entire phone message, and the State would be

required to " place in the whole declaration that' s being made, not put out some, cut

some out, the whole declaration needs to be played and anything regarding that has to

be played." The court noted the defense would be able to play any additional

portions of the jail calls.

11 The defense objected to the ruling of the court. The defense stated that

rather than introduce entire calls on cross- examination of the custodian of records,

it would like to publish the calls during its case -in -chief and " take the night to

review things that we think are relevant and possibly play those tomorrow." The

court agreed to the defense request. The next day, the defense played two of the

jail calls previously only partially played by the State, in their entirety. Rebuttal

Closing arguments in criminal cases should be restricted to the evidence

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI