STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
14-127
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
WENDELL PRICE
**********
APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ACADIA, NO. 79587 HONORABLE JOHN D. TRAHAN, DISTRICT JUDGE
ELIZABETH A. PICKETT JUDGE
Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Marc T. Amy, and Elizabeth A. Pickett, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
Michael Harson District Attorney, Fifteenth Judicial District Court Frederick L. Welter Assistant District Attorney P.O. Box 3306 Lafayette, LA 70502-3306 (337) 232-5170 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: State of Louisiana
Harold D. Register, Jr. Attorney at Law P. O. Box 80214 Lafayette, LA 70598-0214 (337) 981-6644 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Wendell Price PICKETT, Judge.
FACTS
On April 2, 2012, Officer Joseph Cormier of the Rayne Police Department
was working a speed enforcement detail on the north side of the railroad tracks in
Rayne when a vehicle approached him. “[T]he driver was very frantic, stating that
her boyfriend had just been brutally beaten by three black males, and they had a
tan dog with them.” The passenger had a face full of blood with a “bent, possibly
broken” nose, and he appeared to be in a lot of pain. The driver and passenger
reported the incident occurred on Live Oak. One of the three black men was
wearing a red shirt, and another was a large man wearing a white shirt. Officer
Cormier sent them to the police department and dispatched an ambulance to meet
them. He then began a patrol to look for the suspects.
On Live Oak, Officer Cormier first saw a black man wearing a red shirt. He
spoke to the man, obtained his personal information, and “told him to be on his
way.” He looked down the street and saw a tan dog in the roadway. He followed
it, and it went into the defendant‟s yard. The defendant, “a large, black male
wearing a white t-shirt,” was standing in the driveway.
The tan dog, a Chinese Char-Pei and Rottweiler mix, and two other dogs, a
Chinese Char-Pei and a Rottweiler, were in the yard. When Officer Cormier asked
the defendant to put his dogs away, the defendant refused. By then, Officer Joseph
Credeur had arrived, but he remained inside his vehicle. An altercation ensued in
which Officer Cormier hit the defendant in the head with his baton. Ultimately,
Officer Credeur ended the altercation by using his Taser on the defendant, who
was then arrested. The defendant, Wendell Price, was charged with resisting an officer with
force, a violation of La.R.S. 14:108.2, and battery of a police officer, a violation of
La.R.S. 14:34.2, on August 16, 2012. The trial court severed the counts, and a jury
found the defendant guilty of the lesser charge of resisting an officer, a violation of
La.R.S. 14:108, on October 23, 2013. The trial court sentenced the defendant to
serve a suspended sentence of six months in the parish jail. The trial court also
placed the defendant on six months of misdemeanor probation with the special
conditions of paying a $250.00 fine and $227.50 in court costs and completing an
anger management program.
The defendant now appeals his conviction.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
1. The trial court erred in its determination that Officer Joseph Cormier and Officer Joseph Credeur provided credible testimony although there were several blaring [sic] internal contradictions and irreconcilable conflicts within their respective testimonies.
2. The trial court erred in failing to find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Wendell Price was resisting an unlawful arrest when Officer Joseph Cormier began to violently strike Price to effect the unlawful arrest.
3. The trial court erred in failing to consider Rayne Ordinance Sec. 18- 2 when Wendell Price‟s dogs were in his yard on private property.
4. The trial court erred in failing to consider that there was no probable cause to arrest Wendell Price when Price was merely outside speaking on the phone watching his well-trained dogs urinate and thus became the subject of a violent tirade by Officer Joseph Cormier.
ERRORS PATENT
In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed by
this court for errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record,
we find one error patent.
2 The record before this court does not indicate that the trial court advised the
defendant of the prescriptive period for filing post-conviction relief as required by
La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8. Thus, the trial court is directed to inform the defendant
of the provisions of Article 930.8 by sending appropriate written notice to the
defendant within ten days of the rendition of this opinion and to file written proof
in the record that the defendant received the notice. State v. Roe, 05-116 (La.App.
3 Cir. 6/1/05), 903 So.2d 1265, writ denied, 05-1762 (La. 2/10/06), 924 So.2d 163.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS ONE AND TWO
The defendant‟s first two assignments of error allege the evidence was
insufficient to convict him. First, the defendant argues the trial court erred in its
determination that Officers Cormier and Credeur provided credible testimony in
light of “several blaring [sic] internal contradictions and irreconcilable conflicts
within their respective testimonies [sic] [.]” Next, the defendant contends the trial
court erred in failing to find he was resisting an unlawful arrest when Officer
Cormier “began to violently strike [him] to effect the unlawful arrest[.]”
The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational
trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the
essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La. 7/10/06),
936 So.2d 108, 170, cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1221, 127 S.Ct. 1279 (2007) (citing
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979); State v. Captville, 448
So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)). The Jackson standard of review is now legislatively
embodied in La.Code Crim.P. art. 821. It does not allow the appellate court “to
substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v.
Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517, 521 (citing State v. Robertson,
3 96-1048 (La. 10/4/96), 680 So.2d 1165; State v. Lubrano, 563 So.2d 847, 850
(La.1990)). The appellate court‟s function is not to assess the credibility of
witnesses or to reweigh the evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661
So.2d 442.
The factfinder‟s role is to weigh the credibility of witnesses. State v. Ryan,
07-504 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/07), 969 So.2d 1268. Thus, other than insuring the
sufficiency evaluation standard of Jackson, “the appellate court should not
second-guess the credibility determination of the trier of fact,” but rather, it should
defer to the rational credibility and evidentiary determinations of the jury. Id. at
1270 (quoting State v. Lambert, 97-64, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/30/98), 720 So.2d
724, 727). Our supreme court has stated:
However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder‟s discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.” State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1310 (La.1988). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, an appellate court must preserve “„the factfinder‟s role as weigher of the evidence‟ by reviewing „all of the evidence . . . in the light most favorable to the prosecution.‟” McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. [120, 134], 130 S.Ct. 665, 674, 175 L.Ed.2d 582 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). When so viewed by an appellate court, the relevant question is whether, on the evidence presented at trial, “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789. Applied in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, . . . this fundamental principle of review means that when a jury “reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant[ ], that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.” State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 680 (La.1984).
State v. Strother, 09-2357, pp. 10-11 (La. 10/22/10), 49 So.3d 372, 378 (third
alteration in original).
4 Officer Cormier testified he pulled into the defendant‟s driveway and asked
him to put the three large dogs away for safety purposes so he could talk to him.
The defendant first walked toward his house but then “came back and started
cursing, saying he‟s not putting his dogs away.” Officer Cormier told the
defendant he would place him under arrest if he did not put his dogs away. The
defendant refused, saying the dogs “were just using the restroom.”
When Officer Cormier told the defendant he had “one last chance” to put the
dogs away or be placed under arrest,” the defendant responded, “I‟m not putting
my dogs away. Get the F off my property. You don‟t belong here, and I‟m not
being arrested.” Officer Cormier told the defendant he was placing him under
arrest. When he “went to grab [the defendant‟s] hand and put a cuff on it, he
pulled back and hit me in the jaw with his left hand.” Officer Cormier tried again,
and he and the defendant “wrestled for a second.” The defendant then put Officer
Cormier in “a chokehold, a C-grip chokehold.”
At that point, Officer Cormier pulled out an expandable baton and pushed
the defendant away. The defendant ran toward his house with Officer Cormier in
pursuit. They fought some, and the defendant got Officer Cormier into another C-
grip, which he described as “when you grab someone by the neck . . . and you‟re
squeezing, and you‟re trying to choke them . . . There‟s a lot of things that can be
damaged in here which would cause a lot of turmoil and suffocation.” The
defendant and Officer Cormier were pinned between the house and the car, where
Officer Cormier had no room to push the defendant back. He continuously struck
the defendant. Officer Cormier testified he “was in fear of [his] life.” He said he
considered pulling his weapon and shooting the defendant “so that at least [he]
could survive and go home,” but he refrained. He knew he would pass out, be
5 severely hurt, or possibly die if he could not get out of the chokehold. Officer
Credeur then used a Taser on the defendant that released the hold he had on Officer
Cormier. The officers cuffed the defendant, escorted him to their vehicle, and
transported him.
Officer Cormier was “investigating a crime, a very serious, felony, heinous
crime where three persons committed a second degree battery, and [the defendant]
was a possible suspect.” He believed the defendant could have been arrested
simply for having one of his dogs in the street without a leash. Officer Cormier at
first sought only to gather information, but when the defendant refused his lawful
commands, he “commenced to placing him under arrest.” At the point the
defendant struck Officer Cormier, he committed battery on an officer, creating
another reason to arrest him.
Officer Cormier did not seek medical attention or take any pictures of his
face after the incident. He said he did not know if the defendant was ever
questioned about the original crime that led him to the residence.
Officer Cormier never told the defendant he was a suspect in a crime; he
explained, however, this was because he never had the opportunity to talk to the
defendant as he intended because the defendant refused to put up the dogs. The
dogs were “still running around and . . . leaving the yard and being on the road”
when the defendant was arrested and transported to the police station.
Officer Credeur testified that he received Officer Cormier‟s call on April 2,
2012, that a severely injured subject had approached him. Officer Cormier
reported the incident “possibly occurred around the Live Oak area with three males
with a large dog with them.” One wore a red shirt, and one wore a white shirt.
6 Officer Credeur and Sergeant Chris Cormier went to the area and began canvassing
it.
When Officer Credeur heard Officer Cormier advise over the radio he was
going to speak with a suspect at the corner of Live Oak and Perrodin, he went to
meet him and parked in the driveway behind him. Officer Cormier approached
Officer Credeur‟s vehicle and said he was going to advise the defendant to put up
his dogs or face arrest. The dogs were in the defendant‟s yard when Officer
Credeur arrived. Officer Credeur saw the defendant walking toward the residence.
Officer Credeur testified that he stayed inside his vehicle and began
checking his phone for information about another case from earlier that day. He
looked up “when [he] heard a commotion occur.” He saw Officer Cormier and the
defendant “underneath the carport area next to the rear – the back door and the
car.” Although they were “tussling,” they were not throwing punches. Officer
Credeur approached to break up the conflict and saw the defendant “had [Officer
Cormier] in a C-grip chokehold with the left arm.” Officer Cormier‟s feet were
two to three inches off the ground. Officer Credeur said he
could see daylight between Officer Cormier‟s shoes and the driveway. Officer
Credeur was unable to break up the conflict, and Officer Cormier was swinging his
baton “to try to break the grip any way possible.” Officer Credeur “pulled [his]
X26 Taser” and used the drive-stun on the defendant‟s armpit, which tases only the
immediate area, not the entire body. The defendant swung his arm, and the Taser
hit him again. Officer Credeur continued to tell the defendant to stop. When he
finally did, Officer Credeur told the defendant Officer Cormier was going to place
him under arrest.
7 By the time Officer Credeur used the Taser, Officer Cormier‟s “swinging
was slowing down as if he was losing breath as in strength.” He said he was
concerned for Officer Cormier‟s life. He heard none of the conversation between
Officer Cormier and the defendant, and he did not see the defendant hit Officer
Cormier. In the meantime, Kyestle Thomas, the mother of two of the defendant‟s
children, had come outside and was holding a baby. During the incident, Officer
Credeur had to move her out of the way to get to Officer Cormier and the
defendant. Although Officer Credeur noticed people standing across the street
from the defendant‟s house, he testified they would not have been able to see the
corner of the carport and the door to the defendant‟s residence where the incident
occurred.
The defendant and his witnesses told a different version of the incident at
trial. Kaiia Archangel said she was walking to her mother‟s house across the street
from the defendant‟s house on the day of the incident. She saw dogs running in the
defendant‟s yard when a Rayne police vehicle pulled up, and the officer hollered,
“Put the f_ _ _ _ing dog up.” The defendant asked, “What‟s the problem,” and the
officer said they were looking for a dog. Officer Cormier told the defendant, “Sir,
I said for you to put the f-ing dogs up. Put the dogs up now.” He then told the
defendant he was going to arrest him if he did not put the dogs away. Ms.
Archangel saw the officer try to grab the defendant and “hit him with the stick”
when the defendant tried to get away. Ms. Archangel admitted she may not have
heard the first exchange between Officer Cormier and the defendant. She never
saw the defendant take a swing at Officer Cormier or make any aggressive moves
toward him, and she never saw the defendant “put a headlock” on him. Ms.
8 Archangel specifically recalled seeing the defendant‟s father and brother at the
scene. They did not testify at trial.
Ms. Archangel testified the first statement she gave police on April 3, 2012,
“was screwed up from jump.” Even though she signed the statement, she “didn‟t
really read it” and “really didn‟t understand it.” She told her son “what [she]
wanted to be said. He rewrote her statement, she “typed it up,” and she had it
notarized on April 27, 2012, because the defendant “wanted it be right[.]” The
main difference between the two statements was the language Ms. Archangel said
Officer Cormier used. The first statement showed him politely saying “[s]ir, put
[t]he dogs up,” while the second statement said the first thing he said to the
defendant was “[p]ut your f_ _ _ing dogs up” when he arrived.
When Ms, Archangel testified before the grand jury, she testified Officer
Cormier might have asked the defendant to put his dogs up “in a nice way,” when
he first approached him. The defendant “probably said, „No,‟ and he probably p_ _
_ed [Officer Cormier] off.” At trial, she admitted she was “not remembering
everything . . . that probably happened that day.” However, she swore her second
statement was the truth. When asked whether Officer Cormier could have been
very courteous and professional in his first exchange with the defendant, Ms.
Archangel responded, “I can‟t answer that. I don‟t know that.” She then admitted
she “probably didn‟t” hear the first exchange.
Ms. Archangel also gave contradictory and confusing testimony about her
reading ability. Her second statement, signed before the notary, stated she could
not read. She testified she lacked the ability to read the first statement she gave on
April 3, 2012. However, she testified she attended school through the eleventh
grade. She testified she also attended classes to become a certified nursing
9 assistant for “maybe a month”; sometimes she studied, sometimes she did not. She
later worked at Wendy‟s as a cashier, operating a computer and making change.
Ms. Archangel completed her own applications when she applied for jobs. She
reviewed the first statement and determined “it was screwed up. It wasn‟t right.”
Her son then rewrote the statement, and she “typed it up.”
The tasks that Ms. Archangel said she accomplished would be difficult, if
not impossible, if she could not read. Her testimony regarding her reading ability,
which statement was correct, and what she actually saw and heard was confusing
and difficult to understand. The jury could have reasonably determined her
testimony was not credible or reliable.
Amanda Meche testified she was speaking to the defendant on the telephone
on April 2, 2012, when he told her the police had arrived. She heard the officer
“yelling obscenities at him and telling him to put his mother f-ing dogs up.” She
said the officer continued to curse at the defendant as the defendant asked what he
did wrong and if he could be taken to jail for letting his dog use the bathroom on
private property. For “maybe two or three minutes[,]” she “could hear just beating
and yelling and cursing on the other end from [the defendant] yelling and saying
„What did I do?‟ And [she] heard the officer just ke[ep] cursing at him and never
once told him what he did wrong at all.” She “just listened until the phone hung up
at him beating him . . . about five minutes total.” She said she heard the defendant
scream for help as he was being beaten, and she could tell who was hitting and
who was being hit. She maintained the defendant never swore at the officer.
Ms. Meche further testified she heard the defendant “hollering, „Ou, ou,
ou,‟” and insisted she could tell “who‟s hitting who.” She heard the noise the
phone made when it fell to the ground, and she “heard the licks” being hit. A
10 reasonable jury could determine Ms. Meche could not conclude which individual
made which sounds under these circumstances.
Kyestle Thomas also testified. She is the mother of the defendant‟s two
children. She testified she was “in the kitchen with the kids” when she heard loud
noises outside. She heard someone yell “[p]ut your f_ _ _ing dogs up[.]” When
she went outside, she heard the defendant ask why, and the officer repeated
himself, saying he would arrest the defendant if he did not put the dogs away.
Officer Cormier began hitting the defendant “with his black police stick.” When
the defendant tried to get away and go in the house, Officer Cormier followed him
under the carport. The defendant “tried to block himself from getting hit and
grabbed [Officer Cormier‟s] arm.” Officer Cormier “threw [the defendant] on the
car, started hitting him.” Officer Credeur arrived and “Tased [the defendant] in the
chest, and he went down on the ground” while the defendant leaned against the car
with Officer Cormier “on him, hitting him” over the head with the black baton.
Ms. Thomas said she never saw the defendant swing at the officer or put him in a
headlock. Ms. Thomas never knew the defendant‟s dogs to leave the yard.
The defendant testified he was on the phone with Ms. Meche when he let his
dogs out of their kennel. He saw Officers Cormier and Credeur pass, and Officer
Cormier waved at him. They went down the street, talked to someone for about
five minutes, “[t]hen all of a sudden,” one officer came back down his street and
pulled into his driveway.
The officer, who the defendant identified at trial as Officer Joseph Cormier,
rolled down his window and said, “Put your f_ _ _ing dogs in the cage.” The
defendant questioned what he had done wrong, and the officer said, “Put your f_ _
_ing dogs in the cage or I‟m going to place you under arrest.” The defendant
11 pointed out the “No Trespassing” signs posted on his home and asked if the officer
was going to arrest him for not putting his dogs up. The officer took out his baton
and started striking the defendant. The defendant said he grabbed the officer‟s
hand, and the officer “just start[ed] pounding on [his] head,” and the defendant
broke away from him. He tried to go in the house, but the officer grabbed him
from the doorway and threw him on the top of his car in the carport.
The defendant leaned back on the car with the officer choking him. The
defendant “grabbed him tight,” and the officer “got his baton and just started
banging [him] on [his] head and banging [him] on [his] head.” The defendant then
felt a shock, he started shaking, and he was on the ground. Officer Cormier started
asking him, “Where‟s the dope? . . . Where‟s the drugs?” Officers Cormier and
Credeur would not allow the defendant to put his dogs back in their kennel; “they
just threw [him] in the car.” He said he was never told he might be a suspect in a
crime. He denied ever having Officer Cormier in a chokehold. Even though other
witnesses testified in detail about the comments they heard from the officers and
the defendant, no one other than the defendant testified he/she heard the officers
ask the defendant anything concerning drugs.
The three dogs were a Rottweiler, a Chinese Shar-Pei, and a brown Chinese
Shar-Pei and Rottweiler mix. The defendant said he trained them to stay within the
boundaries of his property, and they have never strayed from it. He testified they
had never in their lives been on the street.
Police charged the defendant with “dogs at large, resisting arrest violently
with force, and battery on a police officer.” The defendant testified his refusal to
put away his dogs led to the incident. He said he was never arraigned on the
charge related to his refusal to put his dogs up, and he thought it “got dropped.”
12 The defendant complains about perceived contradictions between the
testimony of Officer Cormier and Officer Credeur. Officer Cormier did not
mention being lifted off the ground while the defendant had a chokehold on him.
Officer Credeur did not mention a suspect in a white shirt or Officer Cormier being
lifted off his feet in his police report, but he testified to that at trial. He did not take
a statement from Ms. Thomas, who was close to the altercation, and he did not see
the defendant‟s dogs in the street. As Officer Credeur explained, “Not all officers
on the scene have to see the same crime committed . . . for it to be an arrestable
offense or a citation issued.”
Further, the defendant questions Officer Credeur‟s memory of the incident.
Officer Credeur‟s report stated he heard Officer Cormier place the defendant under
arrest, but at trial, he testified he heard nothing that took place between Officer
Cormier and the defendant. Officer Credeur felt his memory of the event was
better at trial than at the time he wrote the report. He testified he “had to rush” the
report because his supervisor wanted it before he left for the day, and it was “done
quickly, because at the time [he] was already officially off of work.”
“Resisting an officer is the intentional interference with, opposition or
resistance to . . . a . . . lawful detention . . . when the offender knows or has reason
to know that the person arresting, detaining, seizing property, or serving process is
acting in his official capacity.” La.R.S. 14:108(A). “A law enforcement officer
may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing,
has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name,
address, and an explanation of his actions.” La.Code Crim.P. art. 215.1(A). A
“public place” may include private property when an individual, although located
on private property, is in an area where he has no expectation of privacy, is visible
13 to the public, or is “exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch[.]” State v.
Palmer, 09-44 (La. 7/1/09), 14 So.3d 304, 309 n.2 (citing Hester v. United States,
265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445 (1924)).
In State v. Kinard, 12-446 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/27/12), 105 So.3d 974, writ
denied, 12-2745 (La. 10/25/13), 124 So.3d 1090, the fifth circuit determined an
officer was justified in placing a suspect in handcuffs after he approached the
suspect‟s vehicle for obstructing traffic, and a gun fell from the vehicle. The court
noted the officer‟s right “to stop and interrogate those reasonably suspected of
engaging in criminal activity” as recognized by La.Code Crim.P. art. 215.1.
Kinard, 105 So.3d at 978. Also, the fifth circuit noted an officer‟s authorization
“to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect his safety and to maintain
the status quo[.]” Id. at 979.
Officer Cormier had learned of a brutal crime involving a black man
wearing a white shirt with a tan dog just before he, according to his testimony, saw
a tan dog in the street and traced it to a black man wearing a white t-shirt. Thus, he
was lawfully allowed to detain the defendant, who was visible to the public albeit
on private property, to determine whether he had committed the offense. Officer
Cormier could lawfully take the step of asking the defendant to restrain potentially
dangerous dogs to protect his safety. The defendant resisted that lawful detention
when he refused to cooperate with Officer Cormier‟s reasonable request. Officer
Cormier was in uniform, and easily identifiable as a police officer. Accordingly,
the testimony of Officers Cormier and Credeur establish all the elements of
resisting an officer.
The testimony of the defendant‟s other witnesses, however, contradicts the
officers‟ testimony. Based on the guilty verdict, the jury apparently accepted the
14 officers‟ testimony and rejected the testimony of the conflicting witnesses. The
jury made credibility determinations that this court will not set aside, and those
determinations established sufficient evidence to convict the defendant. These
assignments of error lack merit.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER THREE
The defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to consider the Rayne
City Ordinance Sec. 18-2, when the defendant‟s dogs were in his yard on private
property. The issue of whether the dogs ever left the defendant‟s yard is of no
moment. Even if the dogs were on private property in compliance with the
ordinance, the officers still saw a man in a public place who fit the description of
someone who had just committed a crime. He even had a dog that matched the
description of the dog with the suspect. Thus, the officers were authorized to
question the defendant regardless of whether he was in compliance with the Rayne
city ordinance pertaining to dogs.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER FOUR
The defendant contends the trial court failed to consider whether the officers
had probable cause to arrest him when he “was merely outside s[pea]king on the
phone watching his well trained dogs urinate and thus became the subject of a
violent tirade by Officer Joseph Cormier.” However, the defendant fit the
description of a crime suspect. He refused to cooperate by putting his dogs away
in the interest of officer safety when he was lawfully approached. He resisted a
lawful detention by someone he knew to be a police officer. As discussed above,
the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant. This assignment of error
lacks merit.
15 CONCLUSION
The trial court is directed to inform the defendant of the provisions of
La.Code Cr.P. art. 930.8 by sending appropriate written notice to the defendant
within ten days of the rendition of this opinion and to file written proof in the
record that he received the notice. The defendant‟s conviction is affirmed.