Judgment rendered January 10, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,363-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
WESLEY HARPER, III Appellant
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 371,519
Honorable Donald E. Hathaway, Jr., Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Paula C. Marx
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
JASON W. WALTMAN ALEX L. PORUBSKY Assistant District Attorneys
Before COX, THOMPSON, and MARCOTTE, JJ. COX, J.
This appeal arises out of the First Judicial District Court, Caddo
Parish, Louisiana. Wesley Harper, III was convicted by a unanimous jury of
second degree murder. Harper now appeals his sanity hearing and the
introduction of certain autopsy photos. For the following reasons, we affirm
Harper’s conviction and sentence.
FACTS
On October 15, 2019, Robert Dehn, who was 75 years old, was
working at Regency Inn and Suites in Shreveport, Louisiana. He had been
working there for five or six years as a night auditor. Harper entered the
hotel and spoke to Dehn, who told him he would need an ID to get a room.
Harper walked outside, walked back inside, and told Dehn he wanted
everything he had. Dehn picked up the phone, presumably to call for help,
when Harper punched Dehn, jumped over the counter, and continued to beat
Dehn. Dehn was transported to LSU Ochsner Emergency Room. Dehn
remained unconscious and unresponsive during his hospital stay and died on
November 30, 2019.
On May 19, 2020, a grand jury in Caddo Parish indicted Harper for
the second degree murder of Dehn. On May 25, 2021, Harper requested the
appointment of a sanity commission. The trial court ordered Drs. Marc
Colon and Jenifer Russell to examine Harper. Dr. Russell’s report was filed
into the record on June 23, 2021. Dr. Colon’s report was filed on January 6,
2022. On January 6, 2022, the trial court held a hearing and stated, “All
right. I’ve read both reports, and the doctors have found that he has a
rational understanding of the proceedings against him and that he is
competent to assist in his defense, so the prosecution against him will begin again at this time.” There were no arguments or additional evidence
presented at the hearing.
Harper’s trial was held on November 1, 2022, where ten witnesses
testified and a surveillance video of the incident was played for the jury.
The following testimonies are relevant to Harper’s arguments.
Dr. Navdeep Samra, a trauma surgeon and critical care surgeon,
testified that he was on call when Dehn was transported to the LSU Ochsner
Emergency Room after the assault. He stated the following regarding
Dehn’s recovery:
He just couldn’t-- his body couldn’t just heal with all of these injuries. And because of that initial-- sorry, because of the initial injuries and his age and comorbid conditions, the cascade of events started that he just couldn’t recover to heal, and then, ultimately, he developed [a] pneumonic process, and he just couldn’t-- he coded later down the road and family goals of care discussions were done and then it was made of comfort care.
Defense counsel questioned Dr. Samra regarding Dehn’s preexisting
conditions.1 When asked if the preexisting conditions could have
contributed to his death, Dr. Samra clarified that the preexisting conditions
contributed to his healing process. On redirect, Dr. Samra stated, “He went
to the hospital because of this event, this assault which happened, and then
he-- unconsciousness, he aspirated at the scene. All of those things led him
to go to the hospital and that ultimately led to the bad outcome.”
Dr. Long Jin, an expert in forensic pathology and an instructor at LSU
Ochsner, testified that he performed the autopsy on Dehn. During his
testimony, the State introduced six autopsy photos into evidence. Defense
1 Dehn’s preexisting conditions included weak bones, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and “other comorbid conditions.” It was also noted that because of his age, he had wound healing issues. 2 counsel objected to the photos and the trial court overruled the objection.
The photos included an identifying photo, with the assigned autopsy
number; photos of Dehn’s left and right sides where the tracheostomy in the
neck is visible; photos of Dehn’s refracted scalp and three spots of
hemorrhage; a closer view of the refracted scalp; and Dehn’s left temporal
area and extensive hemorrhage. Dr. Jin determined that Dehn’s cause of
death was homicide.
On cross-examination, Dr. Jin agreed that preexisting conditions could
have contributed to Dehn’s death. Dr. Jin stated that he reviewed Dehn’s
history and still concluded that his death was a homicide.
Defense counsel highlighted Dehn’s preexisting conditions and age
during closing arguments. The jury deliberated for less than an hour and
unanimously found Harper guilty as charged of second degree murder.
Harper was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit
of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
DISCUSSION
Sanity Hearing
Harper argues the trial court erred in failing to make a specific finding
of competence and mental capacity to proceed prior to trial. He asserts that
the following statement by the trial court falls short of determining mental
capacity, “All right. I’ve read both reports, and the doctors have found that
he has a rational understanding of the proceedings against him and that he is
competent to assist in his defense, so the prosecution against him will begin
again at this time.” The State argues that Harper waived his right to a full
contradictory hearing on his sanity motion where no contemporaneous
3 objection was lodged at the time of the trial court’s ruling. They assert that
the trial court’s ruling was a sufficient finding of competency.
The defendant’s mental incapacity to proceed may be raised at any
time by the defense, the district attorney, or the court. When the question of
the defendant’s mental incapacity to proceed is raised, there shall be no
further steps in the criminal prosecution, except the institution of
prosecution, until the defendant is found to have the mental capacity to
proceed. La. C. Cr. P. art. 642.
This court has held that a defendant may waive a full hearing and
submit competency based on the uncontroverted reports of the appointed
doctors. State v. Darnell, 43,048 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/13/08), 988 So. 2d 870,
876, writ not cons., 08-2258 (La. 5/1/09), 6 So. 3d 803; State v. Wry, 591 So.
2d 774 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1991). However, the motion for a sanity
commission cannot be withdrawn because that would remove the ultimate
decision regarding competency from the trial court. Darnell, supra. Indeed,
it would be contradictory to simultaneously argue that a defendant may be
mentally incompetent to proceed and that he may also knowingly and
intelligently waive his right to have the trial court determine his competency
to stand trial. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered January 10, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.
No. 55,363-KA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
versus
WESLEY HARPER, III Appellant
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 371,519
Honorable Donald E. Hathaway, Jr., Judge
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Paula C. Marx
JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
JASON W. WALTMAN ALEX L. PORUBSKY Assistant District Attorneys
Before COX, THOMPSON, and MARCOTTE, JJ. COX, J.
This appeal arises out of the First Judicial District Court, Caddo
Parish, Louisiana. Wesley Harper, III was convicted by a unanimous jury of
second degree murder. Harper now appeals his sanity hearing and the
introduction of certain autopsy photos. For the following reasons, we affirm
Harper’s conviction and sentence.
FACTS
On October 15, 2019, Robert Dehn, who was 75 years old, was
working at Regency Inn and Suites in Shreveport, Louisiana. He had been
working there for five or six years as a night auditor. Harper entered the
hotel and spoke to Dehn, who told him he would need an ID to get a room.
Harper walked outside, walked back inside, and told Dehn he wanted
everything he had. Dehn picked up the phone, presumably to call for help,
when Harper punched Dehn, jumped over the counter, and continued to beat
Dehn. Dehn was transported to LSU Ochsner Emergency Room. Dehn
remained unconscious and unresponsive during his hospital stay and died on
November 30, 2019.
On May 19, 2020, a grand jury in Caddo Parish indicted Harper for
the second degree murder of Dehn. On May 25, 2021, Harper requested the
appointment of a sanity commission. The trial court ordered Drs. Marc
Colon and Jenifer Russell to examine Harper. Dr. Russell’s report was filed
into the record on June 23, 2021. Dr. Colon’s report was filed on January 6,
2022. On January 6, 2022, the trial court held a hearing and stated, “All
right. I’ve read both reports, and the doctors have found that he has a
rational understanding of the proceedings against him and that he is
competent to assist in his defense, so the prosecution against him will begin again at this time.” There were no arguments or additional evidence
presented at the hearing.
Harper’s trial was held on November 1, 2022, where ten witnesses
testified and a surveillance video of the incident was played for the jury.
The following testimonies are relevant to Harper’s arguments.
Dr. Navdeep Samra, a trauma surgeon and critical care surgeon,
testified that he was on call when Dehn was transported to the LSU Ochsner
Emergency Room after the assault. He stated the following regarding
Dehn’s recovery:
He just couldn’t-- his body couldn’t just heal with all of these injuries. And because of that initial-- sorry, because of the initial injuries and his age and comorbid conditions, the cascade of events started that he just couldn’t recover to heal, and then, ultimately, he developed [a] pneumonic process, and he just couldn’t-- he coded later down the road and family goals of care discussions were done and then it was made of comfort care.
Defense counsel questioned Dr. Samra regarding Dehn’s preexisting
conditions.1 When asked if the preexisting conditions could have
contributed to his death, Dr. Samra clarified that the preexisting conditions
contributed to his healing process. On redirect, Dr. Samra stated, “He went
to the hospital because of this event, this assault which happened, and then
he-- unconsciousness, he aspirated at the scene. All of those things led him
to go to the hospital and that ultimately led to the bad outcome.”
Dr. Long Jin, an expert in forensic pathology and an instructor at LSU
Ochsner, testified that he performed the autopsy on Dehn. During his
testimony, the State introduced six autopsy photos into evidence. Defense
1 Dehn’s preexisting conditions included weak bones, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and “other comorbid conditions.” It was also noted that because of his age, he had wound healing issues. 2 counsel objected to the photos and the trial court overruled the objection.
The photos included an identifying photo, with the assigned autopsy
number; photos of Dehn’s left and right sides where the tracheostomy in the
neck is visible; photos of Dehn’s refracted scalp and three spots of
hemorrhage; a closer view of the refracted scalp; and Dehn’s left temporal
area and extensive hemorrhage. Dr. Jin determined that Dehn’s cause of
death was homicide.
On cross-examination, Dr. Jin agreed that preexisting conditions could
have contributed to Dehn’s death. Dr. Jin stated that he reviewed Dehn’s
history and still concluded that his death was a homicide.
Defense counsel highlighted Dehn’s preexisting conditions and age
during closing arguments. The jury deliberated for less than an hour and
unanimously found Harper guilty as charged of second degree murder.
Harper was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit
of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
DISCUSSION
Sanity Hearing
Harper argues the trial court erred in failing to make a specific finding
of competence and mental capacity to proceed prior to trial. He asserts that
the following statement by the trial court falls short of determining mental
capacity, “All right. I’ve read both reports, and the doctors have found that
he has a rational understanding of the proceedings against him and that he is
competent to assist in his defense, so the prosecution against him will begin
again at this time.” The State argues that Harper waived his right to a full
contradictory hearing on his sanity motion where no contemporaneous
3 objection was lodged at the time of the trial court’s ruling. They assert that
the trial court’s ruling was a sufficient finding of competency.
The defendant’s mental incapacity to proceed may be raised at any
time by the defense, the district attorney, or the court. When the question of
the defendant’s mental incapacity to proceed is raised, there shall be no
further steps in the criminal prosecution, except the institution of
prosecution, until the defendant is found to have the mental capacity to
proceed. La. C. Cr. P. art. 642.
This court has held that a defendant may waive a full hearing and
submit competency based on the uncontroverted reports of the appointed
doctors. State v. Darnell, 43,048 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/13/08), 988 So. 2d 870,
876, writ not cons., 08-2258 (La. 5/1/09), 6 So. 3d 803; State v. Wry, 591 So.
2d 774 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1991). However, the motion for a sanity
commission cannot be withdrawn because that would remove the ultimate
decision regarding competency from the trial court. Darnell, supra. Indeed,
it would be contradictory to simultaneously argue that a defendant may be
mentally incompetent to proceed and that he may also knowingly and
intelligently waive his right to have the trial court determine his competency
to stand trial. Id.
The trial court made a competency determination at a hearing on
January 6, 2022. Harper was present via video call and represented by
counsel. Based on the hearing transcript, the competency determination was
based on the sanity commission reports, and the trial court stated it would
base its decision on the reports. Defense counsel was present at the hearing
and had the opportunity to present evidence of Harper’s incompetence. In
addition, no objection was made to the trial court’s determination that 4 Harper was competent to stand trial based on the sanity commission reports.
This is not an instance of a competence determination not being made; the
trial court determined competency. Harper cannot complain on appeal about
the lack of a full contradictory sanity hearing after defense counsel was
aware that the trial court was prepared to determine competency based on
the sanity commission reports, especially since he did not object until filing
this appeal. This assignment of error lacks merit.
Autopsy Photographs
Harper argues that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of
gruesome autopsy photos because the prejudicial effect of the photos
outweighed their probative value. He asserts that the photos of Dehn’s
refracted scalp, showing hemorrhage, were particularly gruesome. Harper
argues that he did not dispute that he attacked Dehn; therefore, the probative
value of the photos was substantially outweighed by their potential to
prejudice the jury. He requests his conviction be reversed, his sentences
vacated, and he be given a new trial. In response, the State argues that the
photos were critical to their case in establishing that Harper’s beating of
Dehn disabled Dehn and was a direct cause of his death in the hospital six
weeks later.
The standard for the admission of gruesome photos is long settled.
State v. Wills, 48,469 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/25/13), 125 So. 3d 509, 518, writ
denied, 13-2563 (La. 6/13/14), 140 So. 3d 1184. Photographs which
illustrate any fact or issue in the case, or are relevant to describe the person,
place, or thing depicted, are generally admissible. State v. Huff, 27,212 (La.
App. 2 Cir. 8/23/95), 660 So. 2d 529, 535, writ denied, 96-0212 (La. 5/1/97),
693 So. 2d 754. Autopsy photographs are admissible to corroborate other 5 evidence establishing the cause of death, the manner in which the death
occurred, and the location, severity, and number of the wounds. Id.
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. La. C.E. art.
403. The test for admissibility of gruesome photographs is whether the
prejudicial effect of the photographs clearly outweighs their probative value.
Huff, supra.
The complained of photos were used by the coroner to show the
hemorrhage under Dehn’s scalp and explain the coroner’s finding that the
cause of death was homicide. In addition, Harper’s guilty verdict did not
depend on these pictures; medical testimony revealed that Dehn was unable
to recover from his injuries and Harper did not dispute that he caused the
injuries. These photos were a part of the State’s argument that Dehn died
from his injuries, not another intervening cause. While autopsy photos are
not pleasant by nature, the photos in question are not gruesome or shocking.
This assignment of error lacks merit.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons detailed above, we affirm Harper’s conviction and
sentence.
AFFIRMED.