STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
22-663 consolidated with 22-664
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
ROBERT CROOMS, JR.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 63022 C/W 63023 HONORABLE THOMAS JAMES FREDERICK, DISTRICT JUDGE
GUY E. BRADBERRY JUDGE
Court composed of Candyce G. Perret, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Guy E. Bradberry, Judges.
AFFIRMED. Donald D. Landry District Attorney Lauren M. Hue Assistant District Attorney 15th Judicial District Court 100 N. State Street, Ste. 215 Abbeville, LA 70510 (337) 898-4320 COUNSEL FOR: State of Louisiana
Douglas Lee Harville Louisiana Appellate Project P. O. Box 52988 Shreveport, LA 71135-2988 (318) 222-1700 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: Robert Crooms, Jr. BRADBERRY, Judge.
On April 24, 2018, Defendant, Robert Crooms, Jr., was charged by bill of
indictment with the first degree murder of Eric Stansbury, in violation of La.R.S.
14:30(A)(1). In a separate bill of indictment, Defendant’s brother, Kenton
Crooms, was charged with principal to first degree murder, in violation of La.R.S.
14:24 and 14:30. On June 9, 2021, the trial court granted the State’s motion to join
the defendants for trial and to consolidate the cases in the lower trial court docket
number.
On January 13, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to quash for improper venue
and a memorandum in support. Defendant contended venue was improper in
Vermilion Parish because the discovery provided by the State showed the killing
occurred in Texas when the victim was shot multiple times in the head. The State
filed an opposition arguing that venue was proper in Vermillion Parish because an
element of the first degree felony-murder was committed in Vermillion Parish. On
March 11, 2022, the trial court convened for a hearing, and the State and
Defendant submitted the matter on the memoranda filed and evidence entered by
the defense. On March 31, 2022, the trial court granted the motion to quash and
provided written reasons.1 The State now appeals the trial court’s ruling. Based on
the following, we affirm the ruling on the motion to quash.
FACTS
Because there is no testimony regarding the events at issue, we have
primarily taken the facts from Detective Trent Guidry’s police narrative, unless
1 After Defendant’s motion to quash was granted, Kenton Crooms also filed a motion to quash for improper venue, which the trial court granted. In addition to the instant appeal, the State appealed the trial court’s granting of Kenton’s motion to quash. That appeal is lodged as 22-664 and a separate judgment is being rendered by us on this date. otherwise indicated. On October 25, 2016, the Abbeville Police Department
(“APD”) was notified of a suspicious vehicle parked on a vacant lot at 700 East
Oak Street, and at approximately 5:39 p.m., officers arrived to discover a blue Ford
F-250 with no license plate parked on the property. Because the property was in
the process of being seized by the APD, officers contacted a wrecker service to
remove the truck from the property. The wrecker driver unlocked the truck in
accordance with towing procedure. Once the truck was unlocked, officers
discovered the body of an unresponsive white male in the passenger side covered
by trash bags, a black raincoat, and a piece of cardboard. The victim’s body was
laying on his right side, with his head placed on the center floorboard, his back and
hips on the passenger floorboard, and his legs on the passenger seat. The victim
was wearing socks but no shoes, and only one brown work boot was found in the
truck. There was a large amount of blood throughout the truck, including on the
driver and passenger seats, on the driver and passenger side doors and floorboards,
and on the inside of the front passenger side windshield. Detectives observed a
bullet hole on the inside of the passenger side door, but no exit hole was located.
After the detectives removed the victim’s body from the truck, they noted rigor
mortis had already set in, and there was livor mortis on the right side of the
victim’s torso. Detectives searched the victim’s pockets, and a driver’s license
identified him as Eric Stansbury of Vidor, Texas. It was determined he was the
owner of the blue Ford F-250.
The autopsy was conducted on October 26, 2016. The autopsy lists the
victim’s time of death as having occurred at 7:17 p.m. on October 25, 2016,
despite the APD’s discovery of the body at approximately 5:39 p.m. The victim’s
body showed signs of a struggle, as the medical examiner documented there was
2 blood on his hands, blood and dirt under his fingernails, and a partially separated
nail bed. The victim had been shot three times: twice in the head and one time in
the right mid thigh. An entry wound was observed near the victim’s right temple
with an exit wound across on the left side of his face. A second entry wound was
observed in the back of the victim’s head, and a projectile was recovered from the
victim’s brain. The medical examiner determined the victim’s cause of death was
gunshot wounds to the head and right thigh.
During their investigation, detectives spoke with Travis Sonnier. Mr.
Sonnier lived on East Oak Street, where the victim’s body was found, and he
indicated he had witnessed two trucks pull into the yard of the vacant lot between
11:45 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on October 25, 2016. Five minutes later, he saw one of
the trucks speed off. Mr. Sonnier described the truck that sped off as a big truck
with dark tinted windows. There is no indication that Mr. Sonnier heard gunshots
during the five minutes both trucks were at 703 East Oak Street.
The APD spoke with the victim’s brother, Troy Stansbury, who gave
information regarding his brother’s very specific daily morning routine. Every
morning before work, the victim left his house in Vidor, Texas, shortly after 4:00
a.m. to go to the Criss Cross gas station to eat breakfast. The gas station was
located on Crocket Road near Interstate 10 in Beaumont, Texas, approximately ten
to fifteen minutes from the victim’s house. When dressing for work, the victim
wore blue jeans tucked into his work boots with a long-sleeved shirt, a cowboy hat,
a belt with two knife holsters, and gold rings on four of his fingers. On his 9:00
a.m. break, the victim always called his wife, Darla, to check in. When Darla did
not hear from the victim at any point on October 25, 2016, she attempted to call
him, but his phone was turned off.
3 An anonymous caller identified the Crooms brothers as suspects in the
killing, and Detective Guidry began investigating them. He looked through
Defendant’s Facebook profile and watched a recent video of Defendant, Kenton,
and an unidentified white female standing in front of a Dodge truck. The video
was recorded on October 25, 2016, at 2:44 a.m. in Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Another anonymous source reported that Defendant had killed a man in
Texas and drove his body back to Louisiana. The source identified the Crooms
brothers as being together at the time of the killing and knew that Defendant had
been driving a Dodge truck at the time.2
The investigation also revealed the cell phones belonging to Defendant and
the victim were together from 4:00 a.m. to 7:39 a.m. before the victim’s cell phone
was turned off in Texas near the Louisiana border. Using GPS coordinates, the
detectives determined the victim did not travel west towards Beaumont to go to the
Criss Cross gas station.3 Instead, the victim’s cell phone was never more than six
miles from his house in Vidor, Texas, for a few hours before it began traveling
eastward. With the assistance of the Louisiana State Police, the APD learned the
victim’s Ford F-250 was captured by a license plate reader at 7:58 a.m. in Lake
Charles, Louisiana, traveling east on Interstate 10. A Dodge truck was seen
closely following behind.
Detectives interviewed Shaekeria Judge, who volunteered that she had called
Defendant to ask if she could borrow his truck. According to Ms. Judge,
Defendant arrived at her house on October 25, 2016, between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00
2 Detectives learned through their investigation that the Dodge truck had been rented by Defendant’s wife in Houston. 3 Detectives also reviewed surveillance from the Criss Cross gas station and were unable to find any footage of the victim’s truck entering the parking lot on October 25, 2016.
4 p.m. in his Dodge truck. Defendant took a black trash bag containing clothes out
of the truck before leaving with another individual. Ms. Judge did not mention
seeing the victim’s Ford F-250.
The APD began investigating another shooting incident Defendant was
involved in. During that investigation, officers located a bag containing several
items which had belonged to the victim, including paperwork bearing the victim’s
name, gold rings, and a watch that were all covered in blood. Some of Defendant’s
personal items were found in the same bag. The officers later located tools, straps,
chains, and toolboxes that were determined to have belonged to the victim, and the
officers found clothes, which were covered in dried blood in the toolboxes.
Another anonymous source called the APD to give a statement. The source,
who claimed to be related to the Crooms brothers, stated that Kenton told him the
brothers were traveling with a white female when their truck ran out of gas. The
source was told Defendant had been “tweaking” when he killed a man who stopped
to help them while in Texas. The source knew the victim had been shot in the
leg—a fact which had not been disclosed to the public and was only known by the
investigators and medical examiner.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Office contacted the APD with information
regarding the unidentified white female who traveled with the Crooms brothers in
Texas. According to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, one of their deputies
picked up the white female, identified as Amber Lyn Lee, as she was walking on
the side of the interstate on October 25, 2016, and dropped her off in Louisiana.
Ms. Lee later advised the APD that she wanted to give a statement about the
events. Ms. Lee stated that she traveled with Defendant and Kenton from
Abbeville, Louisiana, to Houston, Texas, on October 24, 2016. They drove back to
5 Louisiana the night of October 24, 2016, into the early morning hours of October
25, 2016. When they reached Lake Charles, Defendant decided to go back to
Houston, and while traveling in Texas, their Dodge truck ran out of gas.
Defendant pulled off Interstate 10 onto a frontage road where he parked the truck
under an overpass. The overpass was near where the victim drove on his way to
work every morning. The victim pulled behind Defendant’s truck and offered to
bring Defendant to get gas. Defendant exited his truck and left in the passenger
seat of the victim’s truck to get gas, leaving Ms. Lee and Kenton in the stranded
Dodge truck. After approximately an hour, Defendant returned alone driving a
vehicle Ms. Lee described as a SUV and spoke with Kenton. When Ms. Lee
approached the Crooms brothers, Defendant told her to return to the Dodge truck.
The Crooms brothers left in the vehicle Defendant had arrived in and returned two
hours later wearing different clothing and acting differently than earlier. The
Crooms brothers had returned with gas. After Ms. Lee refused Defendant’s sexual
advances, she was told to walk back to Louisiana. Ms. Lee witnessed the Crooms
brothers drive away in separate trucks, but she did not see the victim. Ms. Lee
showed the detectives where their truck had run out of gas on the side of the
interstate using Google Earth.
Detectives spoke with Matthew Buckelew. Mr. Buckelew told the
detectives the Crooms brothers had gone to his house, though he could not provide
an exact date, to ask if Mr. Buckelew had any gas. Kenton was driving a dark
Dodge truck whereas Defendant was driving a dark Ford F-250. Mr. Buckelew
stated that Kenton got out of the truck he was driving. Defendant remained in the
truck he was driving, but it appeared he was alone. Mr. Buckelew remembered
Defendant was wearing a black hooded jacket or raincoat. Detective Guidry noted
6 in his police narrative this statement reminded him that a black raincoat covered
the victim’s body.
Finally, the detectives spoke with Defendant’s estranged wife, Shartamia
Crooms, who advised that Defendant was supposed to pick her up at 4:00 a.m. on
October 25, 2016, in Houston. Defendant did not arrive, and Mrs. Crooms spoke
to Kenton at approximately 5:00 or 5:30 a.m. Kenton told Mrs. Crooms they were
stranded on the side of the road, that someone had picked up Defendant to get gas
an hour ago, and that he was getting worried.
Detective Guidry concluded his police narrative on November 23, 2016, one
month after the APD’s discovery of the victim, by stating the victim’s missing
boot, cowboy hat, cell phone, truck keys, and Texas license plates had not been
located.
ERRORS PATENT
In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for
errors patent on the face of the record. We find the present appeal was filed by the
State seeking review of the trial court’s granting of Defendant’s motion to quash.
This court has found that an error patent review is required in such cases. State v.
Nguyen, 14-639 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/14), 150 So.3d 562; State v. Jones, 13-395
(La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 130 So.3d 1; and State v. Brignac, 10-276 (La.App. 3
Cir. 10/6/10), 49 So.3d 960. After reviewing the record, we find there are no
errors patent.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
In its sole assignment of error, the State contends the trial court erred in
granting Defendant’s motion to quash for improper venue. Before discussing the
arguments made in the trial court and on appeal, we will set forth the applicable
7 law regarding jurisdiction and venue. In State v. Brooks, 20-454, pp. 5-6 (La.App.
1 Cir. 2/19/21), 320 So.3d 419, 422-23, the first circuit discussed venue as follows:
Venue is not an essential element of the offense; rather, it is a jurisdictional matter. See La. Code Crim. P. arts. 611A & 615. Objections to venue must be raised by a motion to quash to be ruled on by the court in advance of the trial. State v. Ford, 2017-0471 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/27/17), 232 So.3d 576, 584, writ denied, 2017-1901 (La. 4/22/19), 268 So.3d 295. The State bears the burden of proving venue by a preponderance of the evidence. La. Code Crim. P. art. 615; State v. Parker, 2012-1550 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/26/13), 116 So.3d 744, 749, writ denied, 2013-1200 (La. 11/22/13), 126 So.3d 478.
Venue is a factual question and, on appeal, review is limited to whether the State submitted some evidence of proper venue. State v. Skipper, 387 So.2d 592, 594 (La. 1980). As such, review of the issue on appeal is not concerned with weighing the sufficiency of the State’s evidence. State v. Eason, 2019-0614 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/27/19), 293 So.3d 61, 72. When a trial court rules on a motion to quash, factual and credibility determinations should not be reversed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial court’s discretion. However, a trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review. State v. Williams, 2018-1795 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/31/19), 2019 WL 2317162 at *5 (unpublished), writ denied, 2019-01028 (La. 1/14/20), 291 So.3d 682; see also State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La. 5/23/03), 847 So.2d 1198, 1206; Eason, 293 So.3d at 72.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 611 governs the jurisdiction
and venue of criminal trials and provides, in pertinent part:4
A. All trials shall take place in the parish where the offense has been committed, unless the venue is changed. If acts constituting an offense or if the elements of an offense occurred in more than one place, in or out of the parish or state, the offense is deemed to have been committed in any parish in this state in which any such act or element occurred.
B. If the offender is charged with the crime of first or second degree murder and it cannot be determined where the offense or the elements of the offense occurred, the offense is deemed to have been committed in the parish where the body of the victim was found.
4 This is the version of La.Code Crim.P. art. 611 which was in effect at the time of the offense in 2016. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 611 was subsequently amended, by Acts 2017, No. 164, § 1 and Acts 2018, No. 125, §1.
8 Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 611(A) does not refer to any act related to the offense; it refers to “acts constituting an offense” or the “elements of an offense.” Where a body is found, and it is unknown where the actual killing took place, proper venue is in the parish where the body of the victim was discovered.
Brooks, 320 So.3d at 423; see State v. Surratt, 05-1406 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/7/06),
932 So.2d 736, writs denied, 06-2100, 06-2102 (La. 6/1/07), 957 So.2d 165.
Further, “the place where the effect of the criminal conduct occurs is an important
consideration in determining whether the charged criminal acts have substantial
contacts with the venue chosen for prosecution.” State v. Hayes, 01-3193, p. 7 (La.
1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1195, 1199 (per curiam).
State’s Arguments in the Trial Court
In its opposition to the motion to quash, the State argued venue was proper
under La.Code Crim.P. art. 611(A) because “the murder was confected during the
course and scope of any variety of robbery.” The State did not dispute or submit
any evidence to contradict Defendant’s assertion that the killing took place in
Texas:
Using the State’s open file documents, Defendant argues improper venue where the State’s file sets out facts which establish the victim Erick [sic] Stansbury had to have been shot within the state of Texas, and very likely died in Texas given the nature of the wounds, and suggests that this information ends the inquiry. The State asserts this was not just a kill and dump, and this continuing transaction is not completed until the Defendant leaves with Erick [sic] Stansbury’s property and abandons him in his truck in Vermilion Parish.
Rather, the State argued an element of the offense of first degree felony-
murder was perpetrated in Vermilion Parish, thereby making venue proper under
La.Code Crim.P. art. 611(A).
The State asserted the “taking” element of robbery began in Texas with the
taking of the victim’s truck and ended in Vermilion Parish with the removal of
9 items from the victim’s body and truck. The State noted Defendant was identified
as driving the victim’s truck in Texas by Ms. Lee and in Louisiana by the license
plate readers without view of the victim. Officers located several items belonging
to the victim during another investigation involving Defendant, and a .38 caliber
gun with DNA implicating Defendant and the victim as contributors was also
recovered. At the hearing on the motion to quash, the State did not call any
witnesses, present oral argument, or offer any evidence. The only evidence offered
was by the defense to show the killing more than likely occurred in Texas.
Trial Court’s Ruling
On March 31, 2022, the trial court granted the motion to quash in written
reasons:
The defendant argues that venue in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana is improper because the evidence produced by the State through discovery “shows that the victim suffered gunshot wounds to the head causing immediate death and that this occurred within the State of Texas. In response, the State argues that while the killing may have taken place in Texas, the robbery element of [First] Degree Murder was not completed until the victim’s property was removed from his person and his truck, and that this last element occurred in Vermilion Parish, which is where the victim’s body was found.
....
The State first argues that the “taking” element of the crime of robbery occurred when the defendant took the victim’s truck. There is no dispute that this taking took place within the State of Texas. As noted by the State, “Defendant is identified as driving the victim’s truck without view of the victim . . . in Texas. . . .” With respect to the victim’s truck, the taking clearly occurred in Texas. The State next argues that the “taking” was a continuing act that did not end until items were removed from the victim’s person and from his truck, and that this occurred in Vermilion Parish. With regard to the other items that were removed from the victim’s person and his truck, no evidence has been presented as to exactly when, where, and/or by whom those items were taken.
10 If other items were removed from the person of the victim immediately following the killing, then these acts most assuredly occurred within the State of Texas, or at least outside the physical boundaries of Vermilion Parish. If these items were in fact removed from the person of the victim in Vermilion Parish, that would constitute a completely separate act occurring several hours after the killing. Thus the killing would not have occurred during the perpetration of a robbery; rather, the taking would have occurred subsequent to the killing. Either way, the State’s argument that the removal of these items (taking) extended the commission of the homicide to include Vermilion Parish must fail.
Additionally, there has been no evidence presented or produced which tends to prove that this defendant participated in the removal of these items, whether that be in Texas or in Vermilion Parish. The Court finds that the State shoulders the burden of proof, and that it has failed to meet its burden by proving no proof as to when, where and by whom the items were removed.
The Court, therefore, finds that the State has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the crime of [First] Degree Murder occurred within the jurisdictional boundaries of Vermilion Parish, Louisiana. Thus, the defendant’s Motion to Quash is granted[.]
State’s Arguments on Appeal
For the first time on appeal, the State argues venue is proper in Vermilion
Parish under La.Code Crim.P. art. 611(B), because it cannot be determined where
the victim’s death occurred. Therefore, according to the State, venue is proper
where the victim’s body was found. As discussed, if “it cannot be determined
where the offense or the elements of the offense occurred, the offense is deemed to
have been committed in the parish where the body of the victim was found.”
La.Code Crim.P. art. 611(B). The State makes three primary arguments under the
exception to the general venue rule: (1) there is no conclusive evidence as to the
actual time of death; (2) there is no conclusive evidence as to which gunshot was
fatal; and (3) the location of the murder was never established. The State
concludes that absent a conclusive time of death or physical evidence pointing to
the geographical location of where the victim’s death occurred, “the trial court
11 could have logically inferred from the location of the vehicle, the time and
discovery of the vehicle and body, and the condition in which the body was in, Mr.
Stansbury was killed where he was found.”
In contrast, defense counsel argues this court should refuse to consider the
State’s arguments attempting to establish jurisdiction under La.Code Crim.P. art.
611(B) because the State did not make the legal arguments in the trial court. “A
legal argument cannot be made for the first time on appeal. Uniform Rules—
Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3.” State v. Perkins, 07-423, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir.
10/31/07), 968 So.2d 1178, 1183, writ denied, 07-2408 (La. 5/9/08), 980 So.2d
688.
We find the defense counsel’s assertion is correct. At no point in the trial
court proceedings did the State rely on the exception in La.Code Crim.P. art.
611(B) to argue that it could not be determined where the killing occurred; rather,
the State asserted that irrespective of where the victim was killed, venue was
proper under La.Code Crim.P. art. 611(A) because an element of the offense
occurred in Vermilion Parish. This is a separate and distinct argument from the
argument the State now makes on appeal. Because the State failed to present any
evidence establishing that venue was proper under La.Code Crim.P. art. 611(B) in
the trial court, it cannot now seek to meet its burden of proof on appeal.
Consequently, we find the State’s arguments are not properly before this court.
Secondly, the State contends venue is proper in Vermilion Parish pursuant to
La.Code Crim.P. art. 611(A). “If acts constituting an offense or if the elements of
an offense occurred in more than one place, in or out of the parish or state, the
offense is deemed to have been committed in any parish in this state in which any
such act or element occurred.” La.Code Crim.P. art. 611(A). Therefore, to
12 establish venue, the State was required to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that an element of the offense of first degree felony-murder occurred in
Vermilion Parish. La.Code Crim.P. art. 615.
First degree murder is defined as the killing of a human being “[w]hen the
offender has the specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm and is engaged
in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of” certain enumerated felonies,
including armed robbery, first degree robbery, second degree robbery, and simple
robbery. La.R.S. 14:30(A)(1). As discussed, Defendant asserted in his motion to
quash that the State’s evidence established the victim was killed in Texas. The
State did not contradict that assertion. Instead, the State limited its opposition to
its argument that a robbery was perpetrated in Vermilion Parish as part of a
continuing and ongoing felony-murder. Therefore, the scope of this court’s review
is limited to the argument made in the trial court. Uniform Rules—Courts of
Appeal, Rule 1-3.
“Louisiana jurisprudence does not distinguish between the armed robbery
which occurs before the killing of the victim and the robbery of the victim whom
the defendant has already killed.” State v. Goodley, 01-77, p. 10 (La. 6/21/02), 820
So.2d 478, 484 (citing State v. Kirkpatrick, 443 So.2d 546 (La.1983)). The
determination of whether a murder was committed during the perpetration of an
enumerated felony depends not on the order of events, but on “whether the murder
and the felony form a continuous transaction without a significant break of
events.” State v. Ramsdell, 09-1510, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/6/10), 47 So.3d 78,
84. Thus, so long as the course of events forms a continuous transaction, it does
not matter whether the robbery occurred immediately before or after the killing of
the victim. Id.
13 With respect to the victim’s truck, Defendant took control of the truck in
Texas as detailed in Ms. Lee’s statement to the APD and corroborated by the
license plate reader in Lake Charles showing the truck pass through Louisiana.
Whether the taking occurred immediately before or after the victim was killed is
inconsequential. However, it is consequential that the robbery occurred outside the
jurisdiction of Vermilion Parish. The State argues Defendant’s continued
possession of the victim’s truck extended the robbery from when Defendant
initially exercised control of the truck sometime between 4:00 a.m. and 7:58 a.m.
in Texas to when Defendant relinquished control of the truck sometime between
11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in Vermilion Parish. The State speculates that after the
victim’s truck was abandoned, Defendant and Kenton took multiple items from the
victim’s body.
In its ruling, the trial court determined the State’s argument failed for
numerous reasons. First, the trial court accepted Defendant’s unopposed assertion
that the victim more than likely died in Texas and found that if items were
removed from the victim immediately before or after the victim was killed, then
the robbery occurred within Texas. In that same vein, the trial court found the
victim’s truck was clearly taken in Texas. Second, the trial court found that if
items were removed from the victim’s body in Vermilion Parish, then that would
constitute a separate criminal act occurring several hours after the killing. The trial
court determined the course of events did not constitute a continuous transaction.
Therefore, the killing did not occur during the perpetration or attempted
perpetration of a robbery; rather, the criminal act would have occurred several
hours after the killing. The trial court found the State failed to prove by a
14 preponderance of the evidence that the first degree felony-murder occurred within
the jurisdictional boundaries of Vermilion Parish.
We find the felony-murder was not a continuous and ongoing transaction as
suggested by the State. The evidence establishes the victim was more than likely
killed in Texas and Defendant took control of the victim’s truck while in Texas. If
Defendant took additional items from the victim in Vermilion Parish, that would
have occurred hours subsequent to the killing. The State failed to meet its burden
of proving proper venue in the trial court. Given that venue is a question of fact
and the factfinder’s determination is afforded great discretion, we find the State has
similarly failed to meet its burden of proving an abuse of discretion in the trial
court’s granting of Defendant’s motion to quash. Accordingly, we affirm the
ruling on the motion to quash for improper venue.
CONCLUSION
The ruling on the motion to quash is hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED.