Judgment rendered May 20, 2026. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 56,829-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
NOEL DEON GARNER Appellant
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 387,323
Honorable Donald E. Hathaway, Jr., Judge
LOUISIANA APPEALS AND WRIT Counsel for Appellant SERVICE By: Remy V. Starns Justin Caine Harrell
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
CRISTOPHER BOWMAN JASON W. WALTMAN ERIC M. WHITEHEAD Assistant District Attorneys
Before PITMAN, THOMPSON, and MARCOTTE, JJ. PITMAN, C. J.
The jury convicted Defendant Noel Deon Garner of second degree
murder. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment at hard labor
without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Defendant
appeals his conviction. For the following reasons, we affirm his conviction
and sentence.
FACTS
On May 26, 2022, the grand jury filed an indictment charging
Defendant with one count of second degree murder. It alleged that on or
about January 20, 2022, Defendant committed the second degree murder of
Jermond Lamar Houston. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty.
A jury trial began on April 22, 2025. Jacqueline Lee testified that on
the night of January 19, 2022, and into the early morning of January 20,
2022, she was working as a cashier at the Shell station on West 70th Street
in Shreveport. The store was equipped with security cameras; Lee identified
video recordings taken from those cameras on January 19 and 20, 2022, and
the jury viewed that footage.1 Lee testified that Houston was armed when he
1 The security camera footage from the exterior of the Shell station shows Houston walk inside at 11:50 p.m. on January 19, 2022; the magazine of the firearm in his right pants pocket is visible. A white Grand Marquis arrived outside the store at 11:51, and Defendant exited from the front passenger seat at 11:52 and entered the store. At 11:53, Houston exited the store while speaking on his cellphone and also spoke to other customers outside the store. He reentered the store at 11:55. At 11:58, both Defendant and Houston exited the store—Defendant walked to the vehicle and sat in the front passenger seat while Houston walked in the opposite direction. Houston reentered the store at 11:59, and Defendant exited the vehicle at 11:59 and reentered the store at 12:00 a.m. Seconds later the glass door to the store shattered and Houston fell with his upper body outside and his lower body inside. Defendant exited the store and stood over Houston while shooting him. Houston kicked his legs in the air and moved his body inside. Defendant then walked to the vehicle, and it drove away. These events all happened before 12:01 a.m. on January 20, 2022. A first responder arrived at 12:06 a.m. The security camera footage from the cash register area of the Shell station shows Defendant and Houston entering and exiting the store at the same times shown in the footage from the exterior camera. At 11:55 p.m., Defendant was holding an ICEE cup. entered the store. She stated that prior to the shooting, no one in the store
was arguing, shouting or fussing. She identified Defendant in the courtroom
as the person who shot Houston.
Khiry Fuller testified that on the night of January 19, 2022, he was at
the Shell station on West 70th Street.2 He viewed a portion of the security
camera footage and identified his vehicle as a white Grand Marquis, himself
as the person in the driver’s seat and Defendant as the passenger exiting the
vehicle. He stated that Defendant was not injured when they arrived at the
Shell station but that he was injured when they left the scene.3 Fuller
testified that he never went inside the store and did not see Houston on the
outside of the store.
Cpl. Matthew Dixon of the Shreveport Police Department testified
that on January 20, 2022, he responded to a call of a shooting at the Shell
station on West 70th Street. When he arrived on the scene, he observed a
black male lying on the ground and bleeding. He stated that officers cleared
At 11:58, Defendant and Houston spoke to each other. At 11:59, Houston was purchasing a Powerade at the cash register when, at 12:00 a.m., Defendant walked up behind him, took the firearm from Houston’s pocket, pointed the firearm at Houston and began shooting at Houston as Houston attempted to exit the store. The security camera footage from the interior of the Shell station shows Defendant and Houston entering and exiting the store at the same times shown in the footage from the other cameras. Defendant and Houston spoke to each other for a few seconds between 11:57 and 11:58 p.m. At 11:59, Houston was standing at the cash register when Defendant reentered the store at 12:00 a.m., walked up behind him, grabbed the firearm from Houston’s pocket, pointed the firearm at Houston and began shooting him. Defendant walked over Houston’s body and continued shooting him as he (Defendant) exited the store. 2 Fuller also testified about his criminal history, which included a 2014 conviction for possession of marijuana, second offense; a 2017 conviction for possession of a Schedule II, methamphetamine; and a 2024 guilty plea for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon for which he was currently serving a five-year sentence. He noted that part of his plea agreement was that he would testify truthfully in this case.
3 The record suggests that Defendant shot himself in the foot as he was shooting Houston. 2 the scene, roped off the area with caution tape and placed witnesses in
separate vehicles.
Cpl. Christopher Collins, a crime scene investigator with the
Shreveport Police Department, testified that he was called to the scene of a
homicide on January 20, 2022. His photographs of the scene were published
to the jury as he described them. He also testified about evidence collected
from the scene, including 18 expended 9-millimeter cartridge casings and an
ICEE cup from which he lifted a latent fingerprint. He stated that he went to
the hospital to document the decedent, and those photographs were
published to the jury. He noted that hospital staff attempted lifesaving
measures on Houston and that projectiles were recovered during those
measures. He also photographed and collected evidence from the Grand
Marquis, which law enforcement recovered and impounded. These
photographs were published to the jury, and Cpl. Collins identified
suspected blood on and inside the vehicle, i.e., on the trunk and the front
passenger seat and floorboard, and where he lifted latent prints. He stated
that he took swabs of the suspected blood to submit to the crime lab for
DNA analysis and noted that he was not able to find any usable prints on the
vehicle. After Defendant’s arrest, Cpl. Collins searched his residence.
Photographs of this search were published to the jury, and Cpl. Collins noted
that he seized bloody gauze, a .40-caliber Glock pistol and a Hi-Point 9-
millimeter pistol. He stated that he swabbed the firearms for DNA testing.
Det. Adam McEntee of the Shreveport Police Department testified
that he was advised of a shooting at the Shell station on West 70th Street,
that a male had been struck multiple times and that he was being transported
to the hospital with life-threatening injuries. While on his way to the Shell 3 station, Det. McEntee learned that Houston succumbed to his injuries, so he
redirected to the hospital. During his investigation, Det. McEntee
interviewed Houston’s cousin who was present during the shooting and
learned that Defendant fled the scene in either a Mercury Grand Marquis or
a Ford Crown Victoria. He also interviewed Jacqueline Lee, who stated that
the vehicle was frequently at the Shell station. He then searched for and
found the vehicle. At trial, Det. McEntee viewed the security camera
footage and described what he was viewing to the jury. He stated that
Defendant walked into the store and stood in line behind Houston, who had
a long magazine in his pocket. Defendant grabbed the magazine, removed it
from Houston’s right pants pocket and raised and pointed the firearm at
Houston. Houston then removed a firearm from his left pocket and began
walking toward the exit door when Defendant started shooting. Houston fell
to the ground and the firearm he was holding fell to his right side. Det.
McEntee noted that Houston was attempting to flee and that he never
pointed a firearm at Defendant.
Cpl. Tiffany Oliver of the Shreveport Police Department testified that
on January 27, 2022, she was dispatched for a warrant execution. Another
officer took Defendant into custody, and she transported him to a rally point
and then to the detective’s office. She stated that when she took custody of
Defendant, she Mirandized him and he then made post-Miranda statements.4
He told her that “Old Boy shot him in the foot,” that he (Defendant) did not
have a firearm and that he (Defendant) grabbed Houston’s firearm and shot
him. Defendant explained to Cpl. Oliver that Houston had “been going
4 Cpl. Oliver stated that she was wearing a body camera and her vehicle was equipped with a dashboard camera but that the recordings from that day were not saved. 4 around saying what he was going to do to me.” She noted that Defendant
had a limp.
Long Jin, M.D., who was accepted as an expert in the field of forensic
pathology, testified that he performed the autopsy of Houston. Photographs
taken by Dr. Jin during the autopsy were published to the jury, and he
discussed the injuries shown in the photographs. Dr. Jin testified that
Houston sustained 26 gunshot wounds and clarified that an entrance and exit
wound are considered one wound because they were caused by one bullet.
He determined that the manner of death was homicide, and the cause of
death was multiple gunshot wounds.
Sgt. John Madjerick of the Shreveport Police Department was
accepted as an expert in the field of latent print examination and
identification. He testified that he compared the latent print lifted from the
ICEE cup with Defendant’s fingerprints and determined that Defendant left
the latent print.
Michael Stelly of the North Louisiana Crime Lab was accepted as an
expert in the field of forensic firearm examination. He testified that he
examined the firearms evidence in this case. He analyzed 18 cartridge cases
and determined that they were fired from the same 9-millimeter weapon. He
analyzed six 9-millimeter bullets and determined that they had the same
class characteristics but were too damaged to conclude that they were from
the same weapon. He excluded the .40-caliber Glock pistol as the weapon
that fired the bullets and explained that 9-millimeter ammunition cannot be
fired from a .40-caliber weapon. He analyzed the 9-millimeter Hi-Point
pistol and determined that the shell casings did not contain the class
5 characteristics of a Hi-Point, which eliminated it as the firearm used to shoot
Houston.
Kari Dicken of the North Louisiana Crime Lab was accepted as an
expert in the field of forensic DNA analysis. She testified that she compared
Defendant’s DNA to evidence and determined that the suspected blood from
the piece of gauze and from swabs of the Grand Marquis’s front passenger
seat, trunk and passenger seat floorboard were all consistent with
Defendant’s DNA profile.
Adlean Houston, the victim’s grandmother, testified that he had three
children, ages seven, six and three. She stated that she missed her grandson
and did not understand why he was killed.
On April 23, 2025, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged of
second degree murder.
On April 28, 2025, Defendant filed a motion for post-verdict
judgment of acquittal and a motion for new trial. The trial court denied both
motions.
A sentencing hearing was held on June 12, 2025. The trial court
determined that the sentence mandated by statute was appropriate in this
case and sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without
benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.
On July 2, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence,
which the trial court denied.
Defendant appeals his conviction.
DISCUSSION
In his sole assignment of error, Defendant argues the evidence was
insufficient to establish his guilt of second degree murder and that the state 6 failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense
when he shot Houston. He contends that he saw a semi-automatic handgun
with an extended 30-round magazine “blatantly protruding” from the right
pocket of Houston’s pants, that he attempted to disarm Houston, that
Houston brandished a second firearm and that he (Defendant) only fired in
response thereto. Defendant alleges that Houston previously threatened him.
He contends that he did not open fire until after Houston armed himself with
the second weapon, which shows that he acted out of fear for his safety and
not with malicious intent. He argues that these facts compel the finding of
justifiable homicide and that the state failed to rebut his claims of self-
defense. In the alternative, Defendant argues that, at most, the evidence
establishes manslaughter as he acted in sudden passion or heat of blood
immediately provoked by Houston’s threatening conduct.
The state argues that Defendant committed the second degree murder
of Houston when he intentionally shot him numerous times at close range. It
states that as the sole aggressor, Defendant has no right to claim self-
defense. It alleges that Defendant grabbed the firearm from Houston’s
pocket and immediately pointed it at Houston, who had nothing in his hands.
It states that Houston turned toward the exit and reached his hand into his
other pocket to remove a firearm when Defendant began shooting. It notes
that Defendant stood over Houston and continued shooting and that Houston
sustained 26 gunshot wounds. The state argues that Defendant did not
testify; and, therefore, the record does not contain any evidence regarding
Defendant’s belief or mental state. In the alternative, the state argues that
Defendant failed to meet his burden of proving the mitigatory factors to
warrant a manslaughter conviction. 7 The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence
claim 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v. Hearold,
603 So. 2d 731 (La. 1992); State v. Smith, 47,983 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/15/13),
116 So. 3d 884. See also La. C. Cr. P. art. 821. The trier of fact makes
credibility determinations and may accept or reject the testimony of any
witness. State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So. 2d 1022, cert.
denied, 531 U.S. 840, 121 S. Ct. 104, 148 L. Ed. 2d 62 (2000). The
appellate court does not assess credibility or reweigh the evidence. State v.
Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d 442.
In any criminal proceeding in which the justification of self-defense is
raised pursuant to La. R.S. 14:19 or 20, 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. In the case sub judice, the jury was
instructed, pursuant to La. R.S. 14:20(A)(1), that a homicide is justifiable if
committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in
imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that
the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger. 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. La. R.S. 14:21.
La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(1) defines second degree murder as the killing of
a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict 8 great bodily harm. Specific criminal intent is that state of mind that exists
when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the
prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act. La.
R.S. 14:10. Specific intent need not be proven as a fact; it may be inferred
from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of the defendant.
State v. Graham, 420 So. 2d 1126 (La. 1982). Specific intent may be
inferred from the extent and severity of the victim’s injuries and the
defendant’s use of a deadly weapon to produce those injuries. State v.
Washington, 50,424 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/16/16), 188 So. 3d 350, writ denied,
16-0718 (La. 4/13/17), 218 So. 3d 119.
La. R.S. 14:31(A)(1) states that manslaughter is:
A homicide which would be murder under . . . Article 30.1 (second degree murder), but the offense is committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. Provocation shall not reduce a homicide to manslaughter if the jury finds that the offender’s blood had actually cooled, or that an average person’s blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was committed[.]
“Sudden passion” and “heat of blood” are not elements of the offense of
manslaughter. State v. Lombard, 486 So. 2d 106 (La. 1986). Rather, they
are mitigatory factors in the nature of a defense that exhibit a degree of
culpability less than that present when homicide is committed without them.
Id. In reviewing a defendant’s claim, the court must determine whether a
rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, could have found that the mitigatory factors were not
established by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
In this case, the stated proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
Defendant did not act in self-defense when he shot and killed Houston. The
9 jury viewed the security camera footage from the Shell station and observed
Defendant and Houston in the minutes leading up to the shooting. Their
only interaction was a brief conversation while standing inside the store, and
the store clerk testified that they were not arguing. The security camera
footage confirms that Defendant was the aggressor in this case. The two
views from inside the store show Houston standing at the cash register and
Defendant walking up behind him, taking the firearm from his pocket,
pointing it at him and shooting him multiple times as he attempted to flee.
Although Defendant contends that he did not open fire until after Houston
armed himself with a second weapon, the security camera footage is
inconsistent with this allegation. It shows Defendant removing the first
firearm from Houston’s pocket and firing it before Houston reached for his
other firearm while moving to exit the store. It also disproves Defendant’s
statement to Cpl. Oliver that Houston shot him in the foot—Houston never
raised or fired the firearm in his hand. Rather, Defendant shot himself as he
shot multiple rounds at Houston. Defendant was clearly the aggressor and
did not withdraw; therefore, this homicide was not justifiable.
The state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had the
specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon Houston. His specific
intent is inferred from the extent and severity of Houston injuries—i.e., 26
gunshot wounds—and that Defendant used a firearm with an extended
magazine to produce those injuries. Defendant’s specific intent is further
demonstrated by his action of standing over Houston and continuing to shoot
him as he lay on the ground. Further, the evidence presented at trial does not
demonstrate that Defendant acted in sudden passion or heat of blood and
therefore does not support a verdict of manslaughter. 10 Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence of
Defendant Noel Deon Garner.
AFFIRMED.