STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2024-KA-0452
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL TYRONE STEELE * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******
APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 554-115, SECTION “C” Honorable Benedict J. Willard ****** Judge Paula A. Brown ****** (Court composed of Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase, Judge Dale N. Atkins)
Jason R. Williams DISTRICT ATTORNEY Brad Scott CHIEF OF APPEALS Zachary M. Phillips ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY ORLEANS PARISH 619 South White Street New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR STATE OF LOUISIANA/APPELLEE
Mary Constance Hanes LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT P.O. Box 4015 New Orleans, LA 70178-4015
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
JUNE 12, 2025 AFFIRMED; REMANDED PAB TGC DNA
This is a criminal appeal. Appellant, Tyrone V. Steele (“Mr. Steele”), was
indicted with multiple offenses, including first-degree murder in the death of Shane
Brown (“Mr. Brown”). After a jury trial, Mr. Steele was convicted of the
responsive verdict of second-degree murder. He now appeals his conviction of
second-degree murder. For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Steele’s conviction is
affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The facts relevant to this appeal focus on two separate instances of
violence.1 In the early morning hours of March 21, 2022, Mr. Steele and an
unnamed accomplice arrived at 4100 Encampment Street, Apartment 310 in New
Orleans, Louisiana (“Apartment 310”). After spending time outside of the
apartment deliberating, Mr. Steele and his accomplice entered through a window.
Once inside, Mr. Steele fired a substantial number of gunshots at the three
individuals located inside—Darren Williams (“Mr. Williams”), Nehemiah Jones
1 The trial in this matter also discussed the murder of Donald McNeil. However, because Mr. Steele was found not guilty of his murder, the facts surrounding same will be pretermitted from this opinion.
1 (“Mr. Jones”), and Amya Cornin (“Ms. Cornin”). The New Orleans Police
Department (“NOPD”) were summoned to the crime scene and, upon arrival,
discovered that all three individuals were dead (the “triple homicide”). Later on
that same day, Mr. Brown was seen for the last time. Thereafter, on March 26,
2022, Mr. Brown’s body was discovered floating in a canal with a single gunshot
wound to the head. Investigators discovered that Mr. Steele had been operating
Mr. Brown’s vehicle since March 21, 2022, the date on which Mr. Brown had last
been seen. Once the vehicle was seized, it was discovered that the back seat was
completely covered in Mr. Brown’s blood.
On April 27, 2022, the State of Louisiana (the “State”) charged Mr. Steele,
via a bill of indictment, with several offenses, including:
• Count one – Second-degree murder of Donald McNeil in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1;
• Count two – Illegal discharge of a firearm while committing a crime of violence or in violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law in violation of La. R.S. 14:94(F);
• Count three – Conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary along with unindicted co-conspirator “S.B.”2 in violation of La. R.S. 14:(26)60;
• Count four – Aggravated burglary along with unindicted co- conspirator “S.B.” in violation of La. R.S. 14:60;
• Count five – First-degree murder of Darren Williams along with unindicted co-conspirator “S.B.” in violation of La. R.S. 14:30;
• Count six – First-degree murder of Nehemiah Jones along with unindicted co-conspirator “S.B.” in violation of La. R.S. 14:30;
• Count seven – First-degree murder of Amya Cornin along with unindicted co-conspirator “S.B.” in violation of La. R.S. 14:30;
2 The identification of “S.B.” was not made part of the record.
2 • Count eight – First-degree murder of Shane Brown in violation in La. R.S. 14:30;
• Count nine – Conspiracy to commit first-degree murder along with unindicted co-conspirator Devonte Smith in violation of La. R.S. 14:(26)30; and
• Count ten – Illegal discharge of a firearm while committing a crime of violence or in violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law in violation of La. R.S. 14:94(F).
On June 16, 2022, Mr. Steele pled not guilty to all charges. This matter came for a
three-day jury trial on March 4, 2024. The State presented ten witnesses, of which
six are germane to this appeal3: NOPD Detective Nicholas Davis (“Detective
Davis”); Gloria Brown (“Ms. Brown”); NOPD Sergeant Robert Barrere (“Sergeant
Barrere”); Justin Manuel (“Mr. Manuel”); Dr. Erin O’Sullivan (“Dr. O’Sullivan”);
and Dr. Cynthia Gardner (“Dr. Gardner”). Mr. Steele did not call any witnesses of
his own. The pertinent testimony elicited at trial is summarized below.
Detective Davis
Detective Davis, the investigating officer for the triple homicide at
Apartment 310, testified that he arrived on the scene in the early morning hours of
March 21, 2022. After review of surveillance footage of the apartment complex,
he surmised that the triple homicide occurred at 2:55 a.m. and that two perpetrators
entered Apartment 310 through the kitchen window. The victims were discovered
to be Mr. Williams, Mr. Jones and Ms. Cornin. Detective Davis attested that Mr.
3 Four additional witnesses testified in this matter, though their testimonies were not relevant to
this appeal. Ms. Larries Smith is the mother of Donald McNeil. Because Mr. Steele was found not guilty of the murder of Mr. McNeil, we pretermit discussion of her testimony. NOPD Detective Christopher Puccio investigated Mr. McNeil’s homicide. For the same reasons as Ms. Smith’s testimony, we pretermit discussion of his testimony. Nelkita Jones is the mother of Nehemiah Jones. Her testimony largely focused on the life of her son and her experience of grief. While we appreciate her testimony, it is not relevant to the issues raised on appeal and will not be discussed further. Lastly, Renata Loya is the mother of Amya Cornin. For the same reasons as Ms. Jones’ testimony, we pretermit discussion of Ms. Loya’s testimony.
3 Williams was likely asleep on the living room couch at the time of receiving his
first round of gunshot wounds. Based on that footage, after the initial shots were
heard, a light came on in the bedroom where Mr. Jones and Ms. Cornin were later
discovered. Soon after the light came on, there was a second round of gunshots,
which presumably were those sustained by Mr. Jones and Ms. Cornin, who were
later found embracing one another on the side of the bed. Shortly thereafter, a
third round of gunshots were heard, which Detective Davis explained were
additional gunshot wounds inflicted upon Mr. Williams. Detective Davis provided
that none of the victims were in a position to defend themselves and there was no
evidence that any of them had access to weapons. Several shell casings were
found at the crime scene, with over seventeen casings being found in the living
room where Mr. Williams’ body was found. Upon further investigation, based on
the shell casings, Detective Davis was able to determine that there was only one
shooter, despite there being two perpetrators seen breaking into Apartment 310.
Honing in further on the apartment complex footage, Detective Davis
described that two subjects were loitering outside of the window of Apartment 310
around 1:27 a.m. The footage reflected that the subjects were attempting to open
the window that they ultimately entered through. Notably, one of the subjects was
noticeably shorter than the other, and the shorter of the two was wearing a white
shirt underneath a black hooded sweatshirt. Detective Davis specifically stated
that the shorter of the two subjects entered the apartment first and left the
apartment last. Nonetheless, the footage clearly showed that each subject had a
firearm in hand. A second piece of surveillance footage depicted a gray Nissan
Altima, later determined to belong to Mr. Brown, driving away from the crime
4 scene at a high rate of speed. The timestamp of the vehicle driving away matched
with the approximate time that the triple homicide took place.
In the course of his investigation, Detective Davis identified Mr. Steele as a
suspect. An integral portion of his testimony focused on an Instagram account with
the screen name “omerta.07.”4 After issuing a search warrant for the account and
investigating its contents, Detective Davis discovered multiple photos and videos
of Mr. Steele. Detective Davis specified that the videos on the account contained
sound bites of Mr. Steele’s voice. He did not locate any photos or videos on the
account that represented posts by any other individual besides Mr. Steele. The
account also contained posts depicting the building and window of Apartment 310
where the two subjects in the surveillance footage ultimately climbed through prior
to executing the triple homicide. After the triple homicide, the holder of the
account also posted photos of Mr. Jones and Mr. Williams. Another post
contained the caption “I hit Duke and Lil Miah and his bitch.” Detective Davis
offered that “Duke” was a known nickname for Mr. Williams and “Lil Miah”
referred to Mr. Jones. In furtherance of authenticating the account as being Mr.
Steele’s, the State pointed out photos displaying tattoos on the back of the account
user’s left hand, which corresponded with the tattoos on the back of Mr. Steele’s
left hand. The State had Mr. Steele show the back of his left hand to the jury in
order for them to observe the tattoos. Detective Davis also discussed two specific
posts on the account which, in his opinion, contained information related to the
investigation of the triple homicide that was not yet released to the public. First,
one post contained the words, “So y’all seen his face, closed casket.” Detective
4 Both briefs filed in this matter refer to the Instagram account as “Omurta.07.” However, the exhibits submitted to this Court refer to the account with the spelling “omerta.07” and we will refer to it as same.
5 Davis provided that it was his belief that this post referred to Mr. Williams, who
had been shot eighteen times in his face. The details of Mr. Williams’ injuries had
not yet been released to the public. Second, the account posted a photo of the
BOLO (Be On the Look Out) released to the media for persons of interest in the
triple homicide. The caption on this photo referenced that people “don’t know I
was one shooter.” Again, Detective Davis specified that at this time in the
investigation, it had not been disclosed to the public that the investigators believed
there was only one shooter involved in the triple homicide. According to Detective
Davis, these two posts revealed information that only the perpetrator could have
known.
On cross-examination, Detective Davis attested that he had no pictures of
Mr. Steele actually posting to the account. However, Detective Davis explained
that because the only photographs on the account were of Mr. Steele, his name was
referenced many times on the account and people who were messaging that
account referred to the account holder as Tyrone, he believed the account was
associated with Tyrone Steele. In addition, posted on the account following the
triple homicide was a photograph of Mr. Steele wearing a white shirt and black
hooded sweatshirt, which matched the same clothing that the shorter subject was
wearing when he climbed through the window at Apartment 310 on the night of
triple homicide.
Detective Davis detailed that as a result of the investigation, Mr. Steele was
arrested. A search of his residence was conducted and numerous firearms and
large amounts of narcotics were found. Also recovered was a gold bracelet, which
was consistent with a bracelet that had been posted on the Instagram account. The
bracelet was found to be connected to Mr. Jones. Regarding motive for the
6 shootings, Detective Davis testified that, on February 27, 2022, Mr. Steele and Mr.
Williams engaged in an verbal altercation at Spider’s Meat Market, which later
turned into a shootout. Detective Davis reviewed the meat market’s surveillance
footage and described that Mr. Williams fired at Mr. Steele who then fired multiple
rounds back in Mr. Williams’s direction. The shootout took place twenty-two days
before Mr. Williams—along with Mr. Jones and Ms. Cornin—was murdered.
According to messages from his Instagram account, Mr. Steele “felt played”
because he was apparently grazed by a bullet during the shootout and had to limp
away from the scene. Detective Davis testified that investigators were able to
ballistically link the 9-millimeter shell casings collected from the meat market on
February 27, 2022 to the triple homicide at Apartment 310 on March 21, 2022.
Ms. Brown
Ms. Brown, Mr. Brown’s mother, provided that when he did not return home
after a night out with friends and was unresponsive to her messages, she attempted
to track him on his cell phone. She tracked his cell phone to an apartment complex
where she also saw Mr. Brown’s vehicle, a gray Nissan Altima, in the parking lot.
She reported this location to the police. While the police did not find her son inside
of the apartment complex, they informed her a few days later that they had found
his body in a canal.
Sergeant Barrere
Sergeant Barrere testified that he began an investigation into the missing
person’s report of Mr. Brown filed by his mother. After gathering information
from Ms. Brown, Sergeant Barrere went to the identified apartment complex where
he and a detective located the Nissan Altima in the parking lot. The accompanying
detective obtained surveillance footage from the complex depicting the parking lot
7 where the Nissan Altima was parked. In this footage, Sergeant Barrere observed a
subject arriving at the complex in Mr. Brown’s vehicle, staying in the vehicle
momentarily, and then exiting the vehicle. Upon his exit, the subject removed a
rifle from the vehicle and placed it down his pant leg, then walked toward the
complex to enter an apartment. The subject was also wearing a maroon colored
backpack, which matched the backpack seized from the house where Mr. Steele
was arrested. Sergeant Barrere stated that the individual in this footage was
consistent with Mr. Steele because the individual was wearing the exact same
clothing that Mr. Steele was seen wearing on Ring doorbell footage from the day
Mr. Brown went missing, March 21, 2022. In this Ring doorbell footage, Mr.
Steele is actually seen with Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown was wearing the same Polo
brand shirt that he was wearing when his body was recovered, and Mr. Steele was
wearing the same hooded sweatshirt he had on when getting out of Mr. Brown’s
vehicle in the parking lot footage.
Sergeant Barrere also attested that he was able to review the surveillance
footage from the triple homicide and confirmed that the vehicle seen speeding
away from Apartment 310 was the same one he located at the apartment complex.
Upon inspection of the vehicle, Sergeant Barrere described the interior condition of
Mr. Brown’s vehicle as having large amounts of blood in the backseat and under
the backseat, which testing showed was Mr. Brown’s blood. On March 26, 2022,
Mr. Brown’s body was discovered in a canal. Sergeant Barrere provided that
during the course of this investigation, it was ascertained that Mr. Brown died as a
result of a gunshot wound from a Glock Gen5 handgun to the head. Based on the
above, Mr. Steele was located and arrested on the evening of March 30, 2022. A
8 search of the residence uncovered numerous loaded weapons hidden throughout
the house, including two Glock 19 Gen5, 9-millimeter handguns.
Sergeant Barrere stated that Mr. Steele, in an interview following his arrest,
denied knowing Mr. Brown. However, an examination of Mr. Brown’s Instagram
account and the account linked to Mr. Steele revealed a conversation between the
two about bullets and committing a shooting. This communication took place on
March 20, 2022, one day before the triple homicide. Sergeant Barrere definitively
stated that his investigation yielded no evidence suggesting any other suspects
besides Mr. Steele in Mr. Brown’s murder.
Mr. Manuel
Mr. Manuel, a DNA analyst at the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab,
conducted DNA testing on blood from the rear passenger seat and on the gearshift
of Mr. Brown’s vehicle.5 He found the blood from the rear passenger seat to be
Mr. Brown’s blood. A swab from the gearshift of Mr. Brown’s vehicle revealed
skin cells belonging to Mr. Steele. Mr. Manuel testified that, when compared with
a DNA sample taken from Mr. Steele, the gearshift swab reflected that it was 72.4
billion times more probable that the DNA collected from the gearshift was a match
for Mr. Steele’s DNA as compared to an unrelated individual.
Dr. O’Sullivan
Dr. O’Sullivan, a forensic pathologist with the Orleans Parish Coroner’s
Office, conducted Ms. Cornin’s autopsy on March 22, 2022, and found that Ms.
Cornin had received seven gunshot wounds.6 On the same day, Dr. O’Sullivan
5 Mr. Manuel was qualified as an expert in forensic DNA analysis.
6 Dr. O’Sullivan, who was qualified as an expert in forensic pathology, conducted several autopsies relevant to this appeal. Dr. O’Sullivan conducted the autopsy of Donald McNeil, so
9 conducted Mr. Jones’ autopsy, and discovered that he suffered four gunshot
wounds. The next day, March 23, 2022, Dr. O’Sullivan conducted Mr. Williams’
autopsy, and determined that he suffered eighteen gunshot wounds. After
conducting these autopsies, Dr. O’Sullivan found that all three victims died as a
result of multiple gunshot wounds and recommended that the coroner classify each
of their deaths as homicides.
Dr. Gardner
Dr. Gardner, the deputy chief forensic pathologist with the Orleans Parish
Coroner’s Office, conducted Mr. Brown’s autopsy on March 28, 2022. The
autopsy revealed that Mr. Brown had suffered one fatal gunshot wound to the back
of his head.7 She classified his death as a homicide.
Following the trial, on March 7, 2024, the jury found Mr. Steele guilty as
charged on counts two through seven and not guilty on counts one, nine and ten.
As for count eight, the first-degree murder of Mr. Brown, the jury found Mr. Steele
guilty of the responsive verdict of second-degree murder. On March 18, 2024, the
district court sentenced Mr. Steele as follows:
• Count two (illegal discharge of a firearm while committed a crime of violence) – twenty years imprisonment at hard labor to run consecutively with the sentences imposed in connection with counts three and four;
• Count three (conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary) – twenty years imprisonment at hard labor to run consecutively with the sentence imposed in connection with count four;
• Count four (aggravated burglary) – thirty years imprisonment at hard labor to run consecutively with the sentences imposed for counts five, six, seven and eight;
that portion of her testimony will be pretermitted as Mr. Steele was found not guilty on the murder charge of Donald McNeil. 7 Dr. Gardner was qualified as an expert in forensic pathology.
10 • Count five (first-degree murder of Mr. Williams) – life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence;
• Count six (first-degree murder of Mr. Jones) – life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence;
• Count seven (first-degree murder of Ms. Cornin) – life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence; and
• Count eight (second-degree murder of Mr. Brown) – life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence.
After sentencing, counsel for Mr. Steele objected to the automatic life sentences
and to the consecutive nature of the sentences. Mr. Steele filed a motion for appeal
on the same day as his sentencing hearing, March 18, 2024, which the district court
granted on March 20, 2024. This timely appeal followed.
ERRORS PATENT
Appellate courts review criminal appeal records for the existence of a patent
error. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2).8 A review of the record revealed one error
patent: Mr. Steele’s sentencing for count two, illegal discharge of a firearm while
committing a crime of violence. At the sentencing hearing, the district court judge
stated that the sentence for count two was going to be twenty years “to run
consecutive to [c]ounts [three] and [four]. Those sentences shall run without the
benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence.” (emphasis added)
8 Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure art. 920(2) provides that the scope of appellate review
includes: “An error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence.”
11 However, it is unclear to which sentences the district court judge was referring
when he stated that they would run without benefits.
As it relates to count two, illegal discharge of a firearm while committing a
crime of violence, La. R.S. 14:94(F) provides, in pertinent part, that an individual
convicted of “illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities by discharging
a firearm while committing . . . a crime of violence . . . shall be imprisoned at hard
labor for not less than ten years nor more than twenty years, without benefit of
parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.” Conversely, count four, aggravated
burglary, La. R.S. 14:60(B) provides that “[w]hoever commits the crime of
aggravated burglary shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than one nor
more than thirty years.” Lastly, count three, conspiracy to commit aggravated
burglary, La. R.S. 14:26(C) provides, in pertinent part, that an individual who “is a
party to a criminal conspiracy to commit any crime shall be fined or imprisoned, or
both, in the same manner as for the offense contemplated by the conspirators.”
Notably, neither La. R.S. 14:60 nor La. R.S. 14:26 allow for a sentence to be
imposed without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, because it is unclear from the record which of “those
sentences” the district court ordered to run without benefits, we remand this matter
to the district court to clarify the sentences for counts two, three and four.
DISCUSSION
This appeal is solely connected to Mr. Steele’s second-degree murder
conviction related to Mr. Brown. Mr. Steele alleges three assignments of error,
12 which we summarize as follows: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction for the second-degree murder of Mr. Brown; (2) the district court
abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce certain exhibits from an
unauthenticated Instagram account; and (3) the district court abused its discretion
in denying his motion for a mistrial after the State showed the jury a photo from
the unauthenticated Instagram account. Considering the second assignment of
error is procedural in nature, we will begin our discussion there.
Assignment of Error No. 2 – Introduction of Exhibits from Instagram Account
In his second assignment of error, Mr. Steele argues that the district court
abused its discretion in allowing the State’s introduction of videos, photos, and
message strands from the Instagram account, “omerta.07”, without properly
authenticating the account.
“Authentication is a condition precedent to admissibility.” State v. Groves,
20-0450, p. 29 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/10/21), 323 So.3d 957, 975 (citing La. C.E. art.
901(A)). According to the Louisiana Code of Evidence, authentication “is satisfied
by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its
proponent claims.” La. C.E. art. 901(A). “A district court has great discretion in
deciding whether a party laid a sufficient foundation for the admission of
evidence.” Groves, 20-0450, p. 29, 323 So.3d at 975 (citing State v. Ashford, 03-
1691, p. 14 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/16/04), 878 So.2d 798, 806). “An appellate court
reviews a district court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under the abuse of
13 discretion standard.” Id. (citing State v. Wright, 11-0141, pp. 10-11 (La. 12/6/11),
79 So.3d 309, 316).
In State v. Smith, this Court determined that when reviewing the issue of
authenticating social media evidence, a “reasonable juror” standard applies, such
that the proper inquiry is whether there exists “sufficient evidence to support a
finding that the proffered evidence is what it is claimed to be . . . .” 15-1359, pp. 9-
10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/20/16), 192 So.3d 836, 842 (quoting Sublet v. State, 442 Md.
632, 669, 113 A.3d 695, 717 (Md. 2015)). “Sufficient proof will vary from case to
case, and ‘[t]he proof of authentication may be direct or circumstantial.’” Id. at p.
10, 192 So.3d at 842 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Sublet, 442 Md. at 667,
113 A.3d at 715). Thus, “the type and quantum of evidence will depend on the
context and the purpose of its introduction. Evidence which is deemed sufficient to
support a reasonable juror’s finding that the proposed evidence is what it is
purport[ed] to be in one case, may be insufficient in another.” Id. Ultimately, this
Court “must determine whether the State offered sufficient facts from which the
jury could reasonably find the evidence authentic.” Id. If this “reasonable juror”
standard is met, then the “[district] court did not abuse its discretion in ruling the
social media posts admissible at trial.” Id.
Interestingly, Mr. Steele asserts that the present matter is analogous to Smith
because he claims the issue in each matter turned on whether evidence proved that
the defendant made the posts on the Instagram account themselves. However,
upon review of Smith, the State in that matter presented no evidence for
14 authentication whatsoever. Specifically, this Court noted that “the issue is whether
the [district] court, in its gatekeeping function, abused its discretion by ruling the
evidence admissible without requiring the State to submit evidence to meet the low
threshold test necessary to authenticate the social media posts.” 15-1359, pp. 11-
12, 192 So.3d at 843. This quote simultaneously reinforces the concept that the
authentication of social media posts imposes a low burden, while also noting that
the State in that matter did not put forth any evidence for authentication. For
clarity, the Smith court further remarked that “the State’s failure to submit evidence
demonstrating the authenticity of the social media evidence . . . ” contributed to its
conclusion. Id. at p. 12, 192 So.3d at 843.
We do not find Smith to be analogous to the matter sub judice. Here, the
State provided several pieces of evidence associating Mr. Steele with the Instagram
account. Detective Davis testified that during his investigation into the account, he
located photos and videos depicting Mr. Steele, as well as videos containing clips
of Mr. Steele’s voice. He further specified that no other person’s photo, video or
voice were found in any posts on the account. Additionally, certain posts on the
account depicted tattoos on the back of an individual’s left hand which
corresponded with tattoos on the back of Mr. Steele’s left hand. The account also
contained posts with direct links to the triple homicide, to which Mr. Steele was
strongly connected. Specifically, these posts consisted of photos of a bracelet
taken from one of the triple homicide victims, Mr. Jones, along with photos of the
triple homicide apartment building and the window where the assailants broke into
15 the apartment, as well as photos of two of the victims, Mr. Williams and Mr. Jones.
Further, a statement admitting to the guilt of the triple homicide was posted, which
read “I hit Duke and Lil Miah and his bitch.” As previously mentioned, Detective
Davis stated that “Duke” was a known nickname for Mr. Williams and “Lil Miah”
referred to Mr. Jones. Finally, Detective Davis testified that several private
messages sent to the account referred to the account holder as “Tyrone.”
Considering all of the evidence presented by the State to authenticate the
account as being that of Mr. Steele, not only is this set of facts incomparable to the
facts of Smith, but we also find that there was sufficient evidence presented by the
State such that a reasonable juror could find that the account was what the State
purported it to be—an Instagram account belonging to Mr. Steele. Accordingly,
this assignment of error is without merit.
Assignment of Error No. 1 – Sufficiency of Evidence for Second-Degree Murder
In his first assignment of error, Mr. Steele contends the evidence, which he
claims was entirely circumstantial, was insufficient to find him guilty of second-
degree murder of Mr. Brown. Mr. Steele argues that the State did not exclude
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, such as an individual who knew the
victims of the triple homicide that retaliated against Mr. Brown.
“Appellate courts review the sufficiency of evidence used to support a
conviction under the Jackson standard.” State v. Riley, 23-0040, p. 12 (La. App. 4
Cir. 8/31/23), 372 So.3d 77, 86 (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct.
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). “Under Jackson ‘the relevant question is whether,
16 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.’” Id. (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789). “The
principal [criterion] of a Jackson . . . review is rationality.” Id. (quoting State v.
Dukes, 19-0172, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/2/19), 281 So.3d 745, 752). “As such,
‘irrational decisions to convict will be overturned, rational decisions to convict will
be upheld, and the actual fact finder’s discretion will be impinged upon only to the
extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.’”
Id. at pp. 12-13, 372 So.3d at 86 (quoting State v. Alexis, 14-0327, p. 6 (La. App. 4
Cir. 12/3/14), 157 So.3d 775, 778). “[W]here there is no direct evidence presented
proving one or more of the elements of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 governs
circumstantial evidence and provides ‘assuming every fact to be proved that the
evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence.’” State v. Mealancon, 21-0119, pp. 6-7 (La. App. 4 Cir.
12/22/21), 334 So.3d 792, 797 (quoting State v. Hutsell, 17-0112, p. 15 (La. App. 4
Cir. 4/18/18), 241 So.3d 542, 551). “Stated differently, the reviewer as a matter of
law, can affirm the conviction only if the reasonable hypothesis is the one
favorable to the [S]tate and there is no extant reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”
Id. at p. 7, 334 So.3d at 798 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting State v. Green,
449 So.2d 141, 144 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1984)). “This test is not separate from the
Jackson standard; rather it simply requires that all evidence, both direct and
circumstantial, must be sufficient to satisfy a rational juror that the defendant is
17 guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotations omitted) (quoting State
v. Hoang, 16-0479, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/21/16), 207 So.3d 473, 475). “If a
rational trier of fact reasonably rejects the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence,
that hypothesis falls; and, unless another one creates reasonable doubt, the
defendant is guilty.” Id. (citing State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 680 (La. 1984)).
“Therefore, ‘where the evidence is purely circumstantial, if it does not exclude
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, a rational juror cannot find defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without violating constitutional due process
safeguards.’” Id. (quoting State v. Monds, 91-0589 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/10/94), 631
So.2d 536, 539).
Mr. Steele was indicted for first-degree murder, a violation La. R.S. 14:30,
but was convicted of the responsive verdict9 of second-degree murder, a violation
of La. R.S. 14:30.1. Based upon our review of the record, Mr. Steele failed to
object to the inclusion of second-degree murder as a responsive verdict to the
charge of first-degree murder. “In instances where a defendant fails to lodge a
contemporaneous objection, ‘when the trial judge may take action, a reviewing
court may affirm if the evidence supports a conviction of the greater offense.’”
State v. Billiot, 23-0529, p. 18 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/16/25), ___ So.3d ___, ___, 2025
WL 1420316, *9 (quoting State v. Pleasant, 10-1533, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir.
5/18/11), 66 So.3d 51, 56).
9 There are four responsive verdicts for first-degree murder: (1) guilty; (2) guilty of second-
degree murder; (3) guilty of manslaughter; and (4) not guilty. La. C.Cr.P. art. 814(A)(1).
18 Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:30(A)(11) provides that first-degree murder is
the killing of a human being “[w]hen the offender has a specific intent to kill or to
inflict great bodily harm and the offender has previously acted with a specific
intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm that resulted in the killing of one or more
persons.” Pursuant to La. R.S. 14:30.1, in part, second-degree murder is the killing
of a human being:
(1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm; or (2) When the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated or first[-]degree rape, forcible or second[- ]degree rape, aggravated arson, aggravated burglary, aggravated kidnapping, second[-]degree kidnapping, aggravated escape, assault by drive-by shooting, armed robbery, first[-]degree robbery, second[- ]degree robbery, simple robbery, cruelty to juveniles, second[-]degree cruelty to juveniles, or terrorism, even though he has no intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.
La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(1)-(2). Specific intent is defined as the “state of mind which
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(1).
The evidence adduced at trial shows that the date March 21, 2022, represents
both the date of the triple homicide as well as the date Mr. Brown was last seen
alive. Mr. Brown died from a single gunshot wound to the back of his head. Ring
doorbell footage from March 21, 2022, revealed Mr. Brown and Mr. Steele were
together in the 1700 block of Spain Street. In that footage, Mr. Brown was
wearing the same Polo brand shirt that his body was later discovered in. The same
footage depicted Mr. Steele wearing the hooded jacket that he was later shown
19 wearing in the parking lot footage of him exiting Mr. Brown’s vehicle, without Mr.
Brown. Mr. Brown’s vehicle was identified in the triple homicide surveillance
footage as the vehicle speeding away from that crime scene. Once the vehicle had
been confiscated and brought in for inspection, it was revealed that nearly the
entire backseat was covered in Mr. Brown’s blood. Not only was Mr. Brown’s
blood in the vehicle, but it was further supported that Mr. Steele had been driving
the vehicle because his DNA was found on the gearshift. In addition to the DNA
evidence confirming Mr. Steele’s identity as the driver of the vehicle in the parking
lot footage, that footage also depicted Mr. Steele wearing a maroon-colored
backpack, which was later seized from the home where he was located at the time
of his arrest. Moreover, the evidence reflects that the same Glock Gen5 handgun,
which was recovered from the residence where Mr. Steele was arrested, was used
in both the triple homicide and Mr. Brown’s murder.
Based upon our review, the record is completely devoid of any evidence to
show a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. To the contrary, we find that the
evidence supports a conviction of the greater offense, first-degree murder. As we
previously noted, La. R.S. 14:30.1(1) only requires that an offender have specific
intent to kill or cause great bodily harm in order to be convicted of second-degree
murder, whereas La. R.S. 14:30.1(2) does not require specific intent, but the
murder must occur during the commission of at least one of certain enumerated
offenses. In contrast, in order to find an offender guilty of first-degree murder
pursuant to La. R.S. 14:30, specific intent is always required in conjunction with
20 the commission of certain enumerated offenses or circumstances. In this instance,
Mr. Steele was neither charged with nor indicted for any of the enumerated
offenses listed in La. R.S. 14:30.1(2) in connection with the murder of Mr. Brown;
thus, we can only conclude that when the jury found Mr. Steele guilty of the
responsive verdict of second-degree murder, it determined that the circumstantial
evidence was sufficient to find that Mr. Steele had the specific intent to kill or
cause great bodily harm to Mr. Brown when he shot him in the head. We agree.
Furthermore, we note that the record reflects that the triple homicide10 occurred
prior to Mr. Brown’s murder, which implicates La. R.S. 14:30(A)(11)—i.e., Mr.
Steele had previously acted with a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm
that resulted in the killing of one or more persons. Therefore, we find that the
record contains sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Steele was guilty of the
greater offense, first-degree murder. Applying the reasoning we articulated in
Billiot (“a reviewing court may affirm if the evidence supports a conviction of the
greater offense” 23-0529, p. 18, ___ So.3d at ___, 2025 WL 1420316, *9), further
review is unnecessary—we affirm Mr. Steele’s conviction of the responsive verdict
of second-degree murder. This assignment of error lacks merit.
Assignment of Error No. 3 – Denial of Mr. Steele’s Motion for Mistrial
In Mr. Steele’s final assignment of error, he asserts that the district court
erred in denying his motion for mistrial based upon the State’s failure to properly
authenticate the above-discussed Instagram account. Specifically, Mr. Steele
10 Mr. Brown did not to appeal any of those convictions connected to the triple homicide.
21 argues that that State failed to present sufficient evidence to confirm that the
account is what it claims it is—an account belonging to Mr. Steele. Thus, he
contends that the evidence from the Instagram account was prejudicial evidence
and he was therefore denied a fair trial.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 775 provides, in pertinent part,
that “[u]pon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered, and in a jury case
the jury dismissed, when prejudicial conduct in or outside the courtroom makes it
impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial . . . .” However, “[m]istrial is an
extreme remedy and, except for instances in which the mandatory mistrial
provisions of La. [C.Cr.P.] art. 770[11] are applicable, should only be used when
substantial prejudice to the defendant is shown.” State v. Jenkins, 19-1024, pp.
15-16 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/30/20), 365 So.3d 55, 66 (quoting State v. Castleberry,
98-1388, p. 22 (La. 4/13/99), 758 So.2d 749, 768). “The determination of whether
actual prejudice has occurred, and thus whether a mistrial is warranted, lies within
the sound discretion of the trial judge, and this decision will not be overturned on
11 Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 770 provides the following:
Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to: (1) Race, religion, color or national origin, if the remark or comment is not material and relevant and might create prejudice against the defendant in the mind of the jury; (2) Another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible; (3) The failure of the defendant to testify in his own defense; or (4) The refusal of the judge to direct a verdict. An admonition to the jury to disregard the remark or comment shall not be sufficient to prevent a mistrial. If the defendant, however, requests that only an admonition be given, the court shall admonish the jury to disregard the remark or comment but shall not declare a mistrial.
22 appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.” Id. at p. 16, 365 So.3d at 66 (citation
omitted).
As discussed elsewhere in this opinion, we do not find that the district court
abused its discretion by admitting the contents of the Instagram account into
evidence. It then follows that, absent an abuse as to the authentication of the
Instagram account, there was no prejudice to Mr. Steele and there exist no grounds
which would warrant a mistrial. We further note that none of the mandatory
grounds for mistrial under La. C.Cr.P. art. 770 are present in this matter. In sum,
we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Steele’s
motion for mistrial. This assignment of error is without merit.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Mr. Steele’s conviction. We remand
the matter to the district court solely for clarification of the sentencing of counts
two (illegal discharge of a firearm while committing a crime of violence), three
(conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary) and four (aggravated burglary).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED