STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
24-252
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
LANCE J. EDWARDS
**********
APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. CR-2020-0450 HONORABLE JUDI F. ABRUSLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE
CLAYTON DAVIS JUDGE
Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Clayton Davis, Judges.
AFFIRMED. Chad M. Ikerd Louisiana Appellate Project 600 Jefferson St., #903 Lafayette, LA 70501 Telephone: (337) 366-8994 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Lance J. Edwards
Hon. Joe Green District Attorney, 33rd Judicial District Court John Richardson Assistant District Attorney 105 S. 5th Street P. O. Box 839 Oberlin, LA 70655 Telephone: (337) 639-2641 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE: State of Louisiana DAVIS, Judge.
Defendant, Lance J. Edwards, was charged with attempted first degree
murder of a police officer, a violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:30, domestic abuse
battery in the presence of a minor, a violation of La.R.S. 14:35.3(C), and two
counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, violations of La.R.S. 14:37.4. He pled
not guilty to all charges. A unanimous jury found him guilty of attempted first
degree murder and domestic abuse battery but not guilty of aggravated assault. The
trial court sentenced Edwards to imprisonment for thirty years at hard labor
without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on the attempted
murder conviction and to two years at hard labor on the domestic abuse battery
conviction. The sentences are to run concurrently.
For reasons set out below we affirm Edwards’s convictions for domestic
abuse battery in the presence of a minor and attempted first degree murder.
Facts
On the morning of November 25, 2019, Edwards placed his two-month-old
son face down on the couch in the house he shared with the baby’s mother, Crystal
Anderson. “You’re gonna [sic] smother him,” a furious Anderson said, and then
accused Defendant of hating her and their child.
After the couch incident, Anderson reported to the Allen Parish Sheriff’s
Office and said Edwards had made threats directed at her and at law enforcement.
In response to those allegations, the APSO obtained an arrest warrant. The SWAT
unit was summoned because Anderson’s allegations suggested that civilian or law
enforcement life could be placed in danger while attempting to serve the warrant.
Part of the unit created a diversionary breach on the side of the house while
the other part of the team breached the front door. Officers testified Edwards fired at them as they entered the home. They returned fire, and Edwards dropped his
weapon and got on the floor. He was handcuffed and transported to the APSO
without further incident. The SWAT team found several guns and a considerable
amount of ammunition in the house after the incident. Edwards consistently
maintained he never fired a shot at Anderson or at the officers.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Edwards’s sole assignment of error claims the evidence at trial was
insufficient to convict him.
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).
Domestic Abuse Battery
The jury convicted Edwards of domestic abuse battery with child
endangerment, a violation of La.R.S. 14:35.3(C) and (I). That statute provides, in
pertinent part:1
1 The sentence provided by Subparagraph (C) was not imposed in the trial court, so it is not pertinent to this discussion. Although the failure to impose the Subparagraph (C) sentence provided by Subparagraph (C) results in an illegally lenient sentence, that issue was not raised in an assignment of error and will not be considered by this court. State v. Jacobs, 08-1068 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/4/09), 6 So.3d 315, writ denied, 09-755 (La. 12/18/09), 23 So.3d 931. 2 A. Domestic abuse battery is the intentional use of force or violence committed by one household member or family member upon the person of another household member or family member.
....
I. This Subsection shall be cited as the “Domestic Abuse Child Endangerment Law.” Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, when the state proves, in addition to the elements of the crime as set forth in Subsection A of this Section, that a minor child thirteen years of age or younger was present at the residence or any other scene at the time of the commission of the offense, the offender, in addition to any other penalties imposed pursuant to this Section, shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than three years.
On November 25, 2019, the APSO received a dispatch advising of a
situation in Elton that had started in Allen Parish and involved a firearm and
threats made to law enforcement. APSO was advised that Anderson was coming to
talk to him.
In her statement written during that meeting, the first thing Anderson
recalled after getting up the morning of the incident was “going off” on Edwards.
She had asked Edwards to watch the baby, and she “felt threatened” by the way he
took the baby and laid him on his stomach on the sofa. Anderson became furious
and told Edwards, “You’re gonna [sic] smother him.” The argument quickly
escalated, and Anderson accused Edwards of hating her and the baby.
As Anderson and Edwards argued, he had something long and black in one
hand, and Anderson thought it was a gun. He may have even had two guns in his
hands. He pointed a gun at Anderson and the child, and she heard a noise.
Anderson thought Edwards had shot her. She thought the noise “could of [sic]
been anything.” She was in a rage, and “had done tore up [sic] the house.”
Edwards was “walking back and forth” when he passed her; she turned her head
“for a second and [she] heard boom.” “I started screaming oh you shot at me,”
3 Anderson testified. “And he was like what are you talking about . . . . I’m like oh
you did it, but in [my] mind it just kept building up you did it, you did it. No, and
only from a sound I mean I don’t even know if it’s actually a gun he had in his
hand.” She also told them about the fight that came afterwards.
Anderson said Edwards forcefully grabbed her arm, even though she denied
that the fight was physical. An officer observed light bruising on Anderson’s upper
arm and photographed the area. Those photographs were admitted into evidence at
trial. The officer feared Anderson was in imminent danger of harm based on her
verbal and written statements.
Anderson followed up by filing a protective order which was heard on
December 6, 2019. At the hearing, Anderson again testified Edwards pointed a gun
at her, and it was so close she could “push the barrel back.” She said Edwards told
her he would shoot up her family, and he would shoot law enforcement if they
were there.
At trial, Anderson testified she was not sure whether Edwards was holding a
gun. She also said that whatever he was holding, he never pointed it at her and the
child. As to the fight, Anderson testified “[i]t wasn’t really [a] physical fight.”
Indeed, Anderson testified she “may have pushed him,” and if he did grab her, it
was “most likely to calm [her] down.” Edwards had nothing in his hands at that
point. He did not touch her “in a bad way . . . he was just trying to calm [her]
down.” He had nothing in his hands. He would have had to touch her to calm her.
Edwards testified similarly about the argument. He went outside and called
Anderson’s mother, Cotaridie Jones, because he thought Anderson needed help. He
told Jones that Anderson “was tripping or whatever.” He described the situation as
“chaotic.” Edwards sat on the couch as Anderson carried her and the baby’s
4 belongings to Jones’s car because he did not want “any more interference with
her.” Edwards denied shooting at her.
Jones arrived soon thereafter and took Anderson and the baby to her home in
Elton. Later in the day, Edwards went to Jones’s home from Kinder on a four-
wheeler. He was armed with a 9mm pistol and a shotgun.
During his visit to Elton, Edwards told Anderson that if she called law
enforcement, “blood will be shed,” and “it [was] going to get bloody.” He then
returned to his home in Kinder.
Jones testified she went to Kinder and took Anderson to Elton after Edwards
called her and said Anderson “needed to cool off.” When Jones walked into the
house, Anderson was holding the baby, and Edwards was sitting on the couch.
Anderson was upset with “tears coming down” and said they had been in an
argument, but she said nothing about the substance of it. Jones saw no markings on
Anderson, and Anderson did not say Edwards had hit her or shot at her. Anderson
did not show her a bullet hole in the wall, and she did not see one. She saw no
bullet casings in the house. Jones knew of nothing to make her believe Edwards
shot at her daughter and grandson.
Edwards was unaware of Anderson’s allegation that he had shot at her when
he went to Elton. He later learned of that from law enforcement after his arrest. He
testified he kissed Anderson and the baby when he left Elton and returned home.
He looked for some of his guns that were missing and thought Anderson must have
hidden them when he went outside and called her mother.
The APSO was advised of the domestic incident and learned that the Elton
Police Department had seen Edwards on a four-wheeler in the Elton area. Officers
asked for and obtained a warrant for Edwards’s arrest. They also pursued charges
5 for domestic abuse battery by child endangerment and two counts of aggravated
assault with a firearm based on Anderson’s report that Edwards fired at her and the
baby.
Although Anderson filed for a protective order against Edwards on the day
after their argument, she testified at trial that she did not want it once she
understood what it was. She testified she was “just doing what this person [the
district attorney’s office] say [sic]” and that she “didn’t know what it was.” She
really “wanted like a stay away or restraining order” because of what she thought
at the time had happened that day. At trial, she denied making the check marks on
the form for the protective order that indicated Edwards had punched, choked, and
stalked her. Anderson ultimately concluded she made a mistake in seeking the
protective order because she did not know whether Edwards had really assaulted
her.
Anderson told police one thing on the day of the incident, and she repeated
those things at the hearing for the protective order. At trial, she said could not
recall what really happened, and she did not know if what she reported to the
Sheriff’s Office in her statement really took place.
The jury accepted Anderson’s testimony of what she said at the December 6,
2019, hearing and what she told law enforcement on the day of the incident. The
resolution of conflicting trial testimony requires a jury to determine witness
credibility. This “is a matter of weight of the evidence and not sufficiency.” State
v. Green, 96-208 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96), 683 So. 2d 1292, 1297, writ denied,
96-2892 (La. 6/13/97), 695 So. 2d 963. The jury may accept or reject the testimony
of any witness in whole or in part.
6 “This court’s authority to review questions of fact . . . does not extend to
credibility determinations” of the jury. State v. Johnson, 29, 629, p. 5 (La. App. 2
Cir. 8/20/97), 698 So. 2d 1051, 1054. This court will not disturb the jury’s verdict
when it is supported by the testimony of a witness, whether in whole or in part.
This assignment of error lacks merit.
Attempted First Degree Murder
The jury also convicted Edwards of attempted first degree murder, a
violation of La.R.S. 14:30. That statute states, in pertinent part:
A. First degree murder is the killing of a human being:
(2) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon a fireman, peace officer, or civilian employee of the Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory or any other forensic laboratory engaged in the performance of his lawful duties, or when the specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm is directly related to the victim’s status as a fireman, peace officer, or civilian employee.
An attempt is statutorily defined as “having a specific intent to commit a crime,”
and doing or omitting “an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the
accomplishing” of the intended offense. La.R.S. 14:27. “Specific intent to kill may
be inferred from a defendant’s act of pointing a gun and firing at a person.” State v.
Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 48 (La. 4/11/00), 768 So. 2d 542, 585, cert. denied, 531 U.S.
946, 121 S.Ct. 345 (2000). Thus, to find Edwards guilty of attempted first degree
murder, the jury had to find he specifically intended to kill the officers who carried
out the arrest warrant.
Based on Anderson’s complaint, the APSO obtained a warrant to arrest
Edwards for domestic abuse battery. Because Anderson indicated Edwards was
armed and had made threats against her and law enforcement, APSO made the
7 determination to activate the SWAT team. The team used a layout of the house
sketched by Anderson to formulate its entry plan.
When the team arrived at the residence, it approached through a small patch
of woods east of the residence to remain obscured from view from the house. The
area from the woods to the house was well-lit, and the team was exposed and
unprotected for a brief moment. The team then split, with part of the group going
to the southeast corner of the house to create a diversionary breach, and the others
going to the northwest corner to approach the front door. APSO Lieutenant
Commander Drew Gushlaw saw the light of a surveillance camera on the porch
and believed they were being watched, so they “need[ed] to pick up a bit.”
The diversionary group heard a command to “execute” and broke the
bathroom window on the side of the house. At the same time, the rest of the team
announced its entry, and APSO Deputy Jose Ortiz heard gunfire at the diversionary
site.
The team had “stacked up” at the front door, with APSO Deputy Tyler
LaCaze at the front holding a twenty-pound sledgehammer to breach the door.
APSO Deputy Jeffrey Strahan followed, holding a ballistic shield to protect the
team from gunfire. Next came Detective Dustin Doyle, Deputy Joshua Manuel,
Lieutenant Commander Gushlaw, and Deputy Larry Amos. As the diversionary
team broke the window, Deputy Manuel at the front door shouted, “Sheriff’s
Office Search Warrant.” Deputy LaCaze breached the door with one blow and fell
into and to the right of the door onto his knee. He did not see anyone inside, but as
he moved the sledgehammer out of the way, he heard someone announce “gun,
gun, gun” and then “maybe three gunshots.” He could not determine who was
shooting or from where the shots came. By the time Deputy LaCaze went into the
8 house, Edwards was on the ground with most of the team crowded around him.
Deputy LaCaze saw weapons throughout the house.
Deputy Strahan entered the doorway after Deputy LaCaze. He moved to his
left to clear the threshold for the rest of the team and heard a shot. He saw Edwards
standing behind the bar, holding a weapon that looked like a rifle, pointed directly
at him. He felt a blast from a shot on his face, on top of his head, and on his pants.
Deputy Strahan had been fired at before, and he knew how such a blast felt.
When Deputy Strahan stepped left on the linoleum floor, his foot slid, and he
fell three to four feet left of the threshold. He heard officers returning fire, maybe
two or three very quick shots. At trial, Deputy Strahan testified he knew Edwards
fired first because he saw him fire the gun, felt the blast and concussion coming
from the barrel, and then felt the blasts of the shots fired by his team.
Detective Doyle entered the doorway next and saw Edwards holding a rifle.
He also saw a light, either a flashlight on the rifle or possibly a flash from the rifle
muzzle. Detective Doyle announced, “gun, gun, gun” to those behind him who had
not yet seen the armed Edwards inside the house. He heard two or three shots at the
same time.
Detective Doyle heard “the whiff of a round” pass his ear, and he felt the
wave of the concussion caused by the firing of the round. He fired four to six shots,
and Edwards either tossed the gun in the air or dropped it. Edwards took cover
behind the bar area in the kitchen, and the team moved closer.
Officers rounded the corner and found Edwards with his hands up and a
holster holding an AR-15 pistol on his hip. Edwards made no movement toward
the weapon. Officers removed the pistol, handcuffed Edwards, and transported him
9 from the scene without further incident. Edwards asked Detective Doyle why they
shot at him.
Detective Doyle explained how rounds coming out of a gun barrel toward
him sound different from those moving away from him. He testified Edwards
became a lethal threat when he fired the shot. Officers in return used lethal force
until he was no longer a threat. Multiple firearms were found all around the house.
Deputy Manuel saw Edwards crouched at the far end of the house in front of
the television with a rifle at his hip pointed in their direction. He heard gunfire, and
he felt the air move in his direction from Edwards. Deputy Manuel heard the crack
of the round going over his head or somewhere nearby. He testified about feeling
the pressure and shock wave caused by rounds of a firearm discharged nearby.
Deputy Manuel testified Edwards “hesitated for a second and then had a
very distinct change of the look on his face” after he fired the round. Edwards then
“threw his weapon to the side and just dove to the ground” as Deputy Manuel
heard the first SWAT team shots shortly afterward. He thought Edwards was
taking cover when he went to the ground.
Deputy Manuel recalled Detective Doyle rapidly firing his .223 (AR-15)
rifle five times for sure, but he felt certain he heard more shots. Deputy Manuel
saw Edwards lying on the floor with no weapon in his hand. Deputy Manuel
secured Edwards in handcuffs while Detective Doyle maintained lethal cover. In
addition to the pistol on Edwards’s hip, Deputy Manuel saw a KelTec KSGH12 on
the counter and another rifle on the couch.
Officers considered Edwards a lethal threat because he shot at the SWAT
team. The team responded with lethal force until Edwards was no longer a threat.
The investigative report of the incident said a bullet hit the door frame, and a bullet
10 hole was later found above the frame. Lieutenant Commander Gushlaw could not
say whether the hole was created by the shot Edwards fired or whether that shot
went out the door.
Lieutenant Commander Gushlaw told the APSO investigator that he did not
see Edwards with a gun. However, he was confident Edwards fired a shot at them
because he heard a sound different from that made by an AR-15 that the SWAT
team carried. That shot came from within the house, and Edwards was the only
person inside. After the team handcuffed Edwards, he asked why they were there.
APSO’s Detective Matthew Hebert found spent .223 caliber ammunition
rounds from SWAT team weapons on the floor of the house. He testified that
another round struck the front door frame as the team entered the house and left a
hole in the frame. However, he then stated he did not know when the hole was
made. He found no exit mark.
Edwards was a gunsmith, gun trader and all-around gun enthusiast who had
amassed an impressive collection of firearms. Among the collection was a
customized KelTec twelve-gauge shotgun that Edwards used for home defense, a
9mm Smith and Wesson pistol he used as his sidearm, and the SKS rifle that
officers testified he used against them.
Detective Hebert seized that SKS rifle and found it “locked back with a
round which appeared to be ‘stove piped’ [sic] and more rounds in the magazine.”
He explained that stovepiped referred to “when the round goes to the chamber, but
it’s locked forward, so it didn’t properly chamber.” In other words, the rifle
jammed, leaving the round standing up. Detective Hebert noted the rear of the
jammed round showed a primer strike, indicating it had been struck by the firing
pin but failed to fire. Detective Hebert found one spent SKS casing, all that
11 remains after a bullet is fired, on the floor within two feet of where Edwards was
subdued. Detective Hebert cleared the SKS rifle of the stovepiped round without
taking photographs or making any other type of documentation of the round’s
placement or condition in the rifle. He made no mention of this round in his
investigatory report of the incident.
Edwards took the stand in his defense at trial. He testified he sometimes “re-
cased” his bullets by loading gunpowder into a spent round. He purchased the
projectiles in bulk at gun shows. The spent rounds were “tapped in the back,”
meaning “the fire pin hit the primer.” Those reloaded rounds would look as if they
had already been fired, and they had in fact already been fired before Edwards
repurposed them.
In his interview with APSO Detective Leger the night of the incident,
Edwards stated 93 times (according to his counsel who said he had counted) that
he did not shoot at the officers. He was adamant during that interview about having
his KelTec shotgun, not the SKS rifle, in his hand when the SWAT team entered,
and he said he was probably on his way to put that shotgun beside his bed where he
normally kept it. At trial, however, he said the shotgun was on the counter far away
from him.
Edwards also insisted he was standing, not crouching as officers had
described, when the SWAT team entered the house. He consistently maintained
that he had no idea why the officers shot at him. He did, however, admit he had
told Anderson if she was going to “call the cops on [him] for any little thing . . .
blood is gonna [sic] be shed[.]” Edwards said “the cops” would “end up wanting to
kill [him].” He testified he meant his blood would be what was shed – the blood of
a black man in the context of the year 2019. Detective Leger did not perform any
12 gunshot residue testing on Edwards. He testified he held officers’ word and
statements in higher regard than those of Edwards because Edwards lied in his
interview.
Edwards remembered the date of the incident “[b]ecause that night someone
bust [sic] in my house and shot at me.” He had slept on the couch the previous
night and had an argument with Anderson that morning because he failed to do
something the way she wanted it. Their resulting argument got out of hand, and he
called Jones to come get Anderson. Edwards had never been in trouble before or
been arrested.
Edwards testified he was watching “The Voice” on television as he took an
inventory of his guns and ammunition that evening. He said Anderson had trashed
the house and either hidden or taken his guns earlier that day while he walked
around a two-and-a-half-acre pond and called Jones. Edwards testified he found
some of the guns in the sofa and under the bed. He had just gotten up to put one of
his guns in his safe when he was distracted by the SWAT breaches. The gun was in
his hand. He was standing, not crouching and ready to fire, when the SWAT
officers entered the house.
Edwards said he was not aware of the allegations Anderson had made
against him earlier that day. He had no reason to suspect officers might be coming
to his house. He testified he had not fired any shots at Anderson or at the baby that
morning, and Anderson herself testified she was hallucinating when she thought he
did fire at them. He was simply taking an inventory of and/or cleaning his guns and
happened to have one of them in his hand when officers crashed into his home. As
soon as they came in the door, he saw “a shield with sheriff on it” and dropped to
the ground.
13 Here, the jury was presented with conflicting testimony of whether Edwards
fired at SWAT officers or whether the officers fired first. In his appellant brief,
Edwards contends the commotion of the primary and diversionary breaches, along
with the announcement of “Sheriff” and the blaring television, would have
activated his instinct for self-preservation and caused him to raise his weapon.
However, Edwards never raised the issue of self-defense or presented testimony or
evidence at trial of self-defense. Rather, he testified that his policy was to not point
a gun at anyone and to treat a gun with respect, as if it were loaded. The jury heard
evidence of the breaches, the announcements, and the shooting and found Edwards
guilty of attempted first degree murder.
Although the State contended a bullet from the SKS rifle lodged in the frame
above the front door, the purported bullet was never recovered. Testimony did not
indicate any effort was made to extract a bullet from the door frame even though it
showed no exit mark. Likewise, testimony did not show whether the bullet was still
there. Had a bullet been extracted, testing could have established its caliber,
determined the type of gun from which it was fired, and perhaps identified the
specific gun that fired it. That was not done. No one could verify that the hole was
made by a bullet fired during the argument with Anderson that morning or during
the SWAT arrest. In fact, Deputy Strahan testified the bullet Edwards fired may
have gone out the open front door, and Lieutenant Commander Gushlaw could not
say whether it did. Likewise, the State offered no firearm expert testimony
pertaining to the SKS rifle or to the alleged “stove piped” shell.
On the other hand, investigating officers found multiple live rounds in the
SKS rifle Edwards held when the SWAT team entered the door. The only reason
they could not have been fired was the “stove piped” shell that jammed further
14 shots. The presence of those live rounds was inconsistent with Edwards’s
testimony that he was simply cleaning or taking inventory of his guns and that he
always treated guns with respect, as if they were loaded. The State relied on the
primer mark on the casing of the “stove piped” shell to show Edwards had fired it
that night. However, had the “stove piped” round been one of Edwards’s
repurposed casings, it would have already shown a primer strike regardless of
whether it had been fired during his encounter with the SWAT team.
Nevertheless, this SKS rifle was loaded. All the officers who heard the shot
testified they could, from their own personal experiences, distinguish the sound of
its caliber of ammunition from the caliber used in their own weapons. Further, they
were familiar with the distinct sounds of bullets fired toward and away from them
and the differences between those sounds.
Additionally, the jury heard Edwards’s admission that he and Anderson had
talked about blood being shed. The jury could have reasonably interpreted that his
comments indicated he expected and was prepared for a confrontation with law
enforcement.
The record contained no helpful photo of the rifle with the “stove piped”
round. The photo which was intended to show the primer strike on the “stove
piped” round was too blurred to verify. Moreover, no ballistic analysis was carried
out regarding the bullet hole found in the door frame. Consequently, to determine
what happened on November 25, 2019, the jury had to rely primarily on the
testimony of the detectives and the SWAT officers involved, as well as the
contradictory testimony of Anderson and Defendant. The jury heard the officers
testify that they felt a shock wave and heard the distinctive crack of a rifle and also
heard Edwards testify that there was no shock wave or rifle crack because he was
15 in fact putting his KelTec shotgun in his safe. However, Edwards had testified the
shotgun was for home defense and was kept near his bed. Ultimately, the jury gave
more weight to the testimony of the officers, and it could infer Edwards’ specific
intent to kill based on his firing at them with a loaded gun. Hoffman, 768 So. 2d
542.
The opposing testimony of Edwards and the SWAT team officers establishes
a basis on which rational triers of fact could disagree about the interpretation of the
evidence. The jury considered all this evidence, weighed the testimony of Edwards
and the SWAT team officers, and by finding Edwards guilty, demonstrated it
found the testimony of the State’s witnesses to be more credible than Edwards’s
testimony. We find no manifest error on the jury’s part, and we will not disturb its
determination of the witnesses’ credibility. See Green, 683 So. 2d 1292, and
Johnson, 698 So. 2d 1051.
CONCLUSION
Anderson’s testimony at trial was sufficient to establish the claims she
reported to law enforcement even though at trial she could not be certain of what
happened that morning. The jury had the opportunity to assess Anderson’s
credibility, and we will not disturb that finding.
The jury also weighed conflicting evidence about the SWAT team’s
encounter at the home later that day and found Edwards pointed a loaded gun at the
officers and/or fired at them. Such an act constitutes an attempt to kill.
Accordingly, we affirm Edwards’s convictions for domestic abuse battery
and for attempted first degree murder of the SWAT team officers.
AFFIRMED.