STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-KA-14
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES E BATES COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 23-3504, DIVISION "E" HONORABLE FRANK A. BRINDISI, JUDGE PRESIDING
August 22, 2024
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Scott U. Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel
AFFIRMED SUS MEJ TSM COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr. Juliet L. Clark Thomas J. Butler
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, CHARLES E. BATES Holli A. Herrle-Castillo SCHLEGEL, J.
Defendant, Charles E. Bates, appeals his conviction and sentence for
illegal use of a weapon in violation of La. R.S. 14:94. For the following
reasons, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Procedural Background
On July 25, 2023, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of
information charging that on or about June 15, 2023, defendant illegally
discharged a firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:94(A)(B). The bill provided
that defendant “violated La. R.S. 14:94(A)(B) in that he did intentionally, or
in a criminally negligent manner, discharge a firearm under circumstances
where it was foreseeable that death or great bodily harm might result to a
human being.” Defendant pled not guilty at his arraignment on August 14,
2023.
The case proceeded to a jury trial on November 27, 2023. On that
day, the six-person jury found defendant guilty as charged by a unanimous
verdict. Defense counsel waived sentencing delays, and defendant was
sentenced to two years of home incarceration. Defense counsel also filed a
motion for appeal on that day. The trial court granted the motion to appeal
on November 28, 2023.
Facts
The State called two witnesses at the trial: Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s
Office Deputies Eric Glorioso and Anthony Lisgo. The State also
introduced as exhibits: portions of the 911 call; portions of Dep. Glorioso’s
body camera video; a gun, a projectile, a shell casing, and bullets that were
inside the gun found at the scene; and photographs.
On June 15, 2023, the Jefferson Parish emergency operator received a
911 call from an apartment complex on Manhattan Blvd., which reported
that a maintenance worker had heard an argument and shots coming from
24-KA-14 1 one of the apartments. When asked how the maintenance worker knew this,
the caller replied that the maintenance worker said he had heard the shots.
The caller said that the maintenance worker did not specify how many shots
he heard, but that it was the boyfriend and there was only a woman on the
lease.
Dep. Glorioso, a nine-year employee of the JPSO, testified that he was
dispatched in response to a 911 call from a maintenance worker at an
apartment complex on Manhattan Blvd. who had heard an argument and
shots fired from an apartment. When he arrived at the complex, Dep.
Glorioso responded to the front office to gather more information about what
had occurred. After learning where the shots had come from, the deputy
proceeded towards the apartment. When he arrived, other deputies were
already on scene speaking with defendant, who was coming down the stairs,
wearing a white t-shirt “covered in blood” and acting aggressively. There
was also a woman standing at the top of the stairwell, who was later
identified as a friend of defendant, who was present during the incident.
Dep. Glorioso testified that they then handcuffed defendant, advised him of
his Miranda rights, and started talking with defendant about what was going
on. According to Dep. Glorioso, all they knew at this point was that there
was an argument at the apartment complex, that glass had been broken, and
that a shot had been fired. The interaction was recorded on his body camera
video, which was introduced into evidence and published in part to the jury.
Defendant explained on the body camera video that he and his
girlfriend, who lived together, had been throwing things at each other during
the argument, that he broke a window, but that there was nothing physical.
His girlfriend left before the police arrived. He stated that he then started to
pack up his things, and was going to leave with his dog. When defendant
was asked whether there were guns in the apartment, he said that there were
24-KA-14 2 and told the officers that they could find it on the second sofa by the door.
And when defendant was asked about whether any of the guns were fired
accidentally, he said no, but then backtracked and said that he was not sure
and said he didn’t even remember putting a gun in his hands. But after one
of the deputies confronted him about the fact that they also found a projectile
and a casing on the landing, defendant said that he did not hear anything go
off, and that “none of us” shot the gun. The video shows that an officer
asked defendant “who grabbed the gun?” Defendant responded: “Who
grabbed it? It’s mine. So I’m the one that grabbed it.”
He reiterated on the video:
What I explained to you earlier - I don’t know what – how the gun went off. All I remember was – is when I picked up everything to walk out that was when we were still throwing stuff at each other. But not that I put my hand on the trigger . . .
Dep. Anthony Lisgo also responded to the scene and testified that as
he approached the stairwell at the apartment complex, he encountered
defendant, who was wearing a white t-shirt covered in blood. Dep. Lisgo
also saw a green suitcase on the upstairs landing and a dog running around.
Dep. Lisgo asked defendant, “Hey man, what happened?” But defendant
just kept saying, “The glass upstairs, the glass.”
Dep. Lisgo was able to determine that defendant had a cut on his
forearm and had a lot of blood on him. Dep. Lisgo testified that he went
upstairs and walked through the apartment to make sure no one else was
injured. He did not observe the gun on this walk through, but saw that there
was blood on the walls, holes in doors, and the apartment was in complete
disarray. He said that another deputy was coming in behind him and noticed
that a window in the landing was broken. They eventually found a projectile
lodged in the floor of the balcony area and a shell casing in that same area.
Dep. Lisgo testified that he went back downstairs and said to
defendant “Listen, man, we know there was a shooting. If there’s a gun, 24-KA-14 3 where would it be at?” Defendant told him it was on the second couch next
to the door. So Dep. Lisgo went back upstairs to look for the gun. When he
did not see a gun on the couch, he put his hand into the crease of the couch
that defendant had identified and pulled out a loaded semi-automatic
handgun. Because people were still on the scene, Dep. Lisgo secured the
gun and made it safe.
Dep. Lisgo identified the spent shell casing, the projectile, the firearm
with magazine, and the bullets that had been in the firearm. He also
identified the live rounds that were removed from the magazine of the
firearm. Dep. Lisgo also identified photographs taken at the scene. He
testified that he saw what appeared to be blood on the gun.
Neither deputy spoke to either of the females at the scene. Nor did
either woman testify at the trial. Defendant’s roommate briefly appears at
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-KA-14
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES E BATES COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 23-3504, DIVISION "E" HONORABLE FRANK A. BRINDISI, JUDGE PRESIDING
August 22, 2024
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Scott U. Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel
AFFIRMED SUS MEJ TSM COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr. Juliet L. Clark Thomas J. Butler
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, CHARLES E. BATES Holli A. Herrle-Castillo SCHLEGEL, J.
Defendant, Charles E. Bates, appeals his conviction and sentence for
illegal use of a weapon in violation of La. R.S. 14:94. For the following
reasons, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Procedural Background
On July 25, 2023, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of
information charging that on or about June 15, 2023, defendant illegally
discharged a firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:94(A)(B). The bill provided
that defendant “violated La. R.S. 14:94(A)(B) in that he did intentionally, or
in a criminally negligent manner, discharge a firearm under circumstances
where it was foreseeable that death or great bodily harm might result to a
human being.” Defendant pled not guilty at his arraignment on August 14,
2023.
The case proceeded to a jury trial on November 27, 2023. On that
day, the six-person jury found defendant guilty as charged by a unanimous
verdict. Defense counsel waived sentencing delays, and defendant was
sentenced to two years of home incarceration. Defense counsel also filed a
motion for appeal on that day. The trial court granted the motion to appeal
on November 28, 2023.
Facts
The State called two witnesses at the trial: Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s
Office Deputies Eric Glorioso and Anthony Lisgo. The State also
introduced as exhibits: portions of the 911 call; portions of Dep. Glorioso’s
body camera video; a gun, a projectile, a shell casing, and bullets that were
inside the gun found at the scene; and photographs.
On June 15, 2023, the Jefferson Parish emergency operator received a
911 call from an apartment complex on Manhattan Blvd., which reported
that a maintenance worker had heard an argument and shots coming from
24-KA-14 1 one of the apartments. When asked how the maintenance worker knew this,
the caller replied that the maintenance worker said he had heard the shots.
The caller said that the maintenance worker did not specify how many shots
he heard, but that it was the boyfriend and there was only a woman on the
lease.
Dep. Glorioso, a nine-year employee of the JPSO, testified that he was
dispatched in response to a 911 call from a maintenance worker at an
apartment complex on Manhattan Blvd. who had heard an argument and
shots fired from an apartment. When he arrived at the complex, Dep.
Glorioso responded to the front office to gather more information about what
had occurred. After learning where the shots had come from, the deputy
proceeded towards the apartment. When he arrived, other deputies were
already on scene speaking with defendant, who was coming down the stairs,
wearing a white t-shirt “covered in blood” and acting aggressively. There
was also a woman standing at the top of the stairwell, who was later
identified as a friend of defendant, who was present during the incident.
Dep. Glorioso testified that they then handcuffed defendant, advised him of
his Miranda rights, and started talking with defendant about what was going
on. According to Dep. Glorioso, all they knew at this point was that there
was an argument at the apartment complex, that glass had been broken, and
that a shot had been fired. The interaction was recorded on his body camera
video, which was introduced into evidence and published in part to the jury.
Defendant explained on the body camera video that he and his
girlfriend, who lived together, had been throwing things at each other during
the argument, that he broke a window, but that there was nothing physical.
His girlfriend left before the police arrived. He stated that he then started to
pack up his things, and was going to leave with his dog. When defendant
was asked whether there were guns in the apartment, he said that there were
24-KA-14 2 and told the officers that they could find it on the second sofa by the door.
And when defendant was asked about whether any of the guns were fired
accidentally, he said no, but then backtracked and said that he was not sure
and said he didn’t even remember putting a gun in his hands. But after one
of the deputies confronted him about the fact that they also found a projectile
and a casing on the landing, defendant said that he did not hear anything go
off, and that “none of us” shot the gun. The video shows that an officer
asked defendant “who grabbed the gun?” Defendant responded: “Who
grabbed it? It’s mine. So I’m the one that grabbed it.”
He reiterated on the video:
What I explained to you earlier - I don’t know what – how the gun went off. All I remember was – is when I picked up everything to walk out that was when we were still throwing stuff at each other. But not that I put my hand on the trigger . . .
Dep. Anthony Lisgo also responded to the scene and testified that as
he approached the stairwell at the apartment complex, he encountered
defendant, who was wearing a white t-shirt covered in blood. Dep. Lisgo
also saw a green suitcase on the upstairs landing and a dog running around.
Dep. Lisgo asked defendant, “Hey man, what happened?” But defendant
just kept saying, “The glass upstairs, the glass.”
Dep. Lisgo was able to determine that defendant had a cut on his
forearm and had a lot of blood on him. Dep. Lisgo testified that he went
upstairs and walked through the apartment to make sure no one else was
injured. He did not observe the gun on this walk through, but saw that there
was blood on the walls, holes in doors, and the apartment was in complete
disarray. He said that another deputy was coming in behind him and noticed
that a window in the landing was broken. They eventually found a projectile
lodged in the floor of the balcony area and a shell casing in that same area.
Dep. Lisgo testified that he went back downstairs and said to
defendant “Listen, man, we know there was a shooting. If there’s a gun, 24-KA-14 3 where would it be at?” Defendant told him it was on the second couch next
to the door. So Dep. Lisgo went back upstairs to look for the gun. When he
did not see a gun on the couch, he put his hand into the crease of the couch
that defendant had identified and pulled out a loaded semi-automatic
handgun. Because people were still on the scene, Dep. Lisgo secured the
gun and made it safe.
Dep. Lisgo identified the spent shell casing, the projectile, the firearm
with magazine, and the bullets that had been in the firearm. He also
identified the live rounds that were removed from the magazine of the
firearm. Dep. Lisgo also identified photographs taken at the scene. He
testified that he saw what appeared to be blood on the gun.
Neither deputy spoke to either of the females at the scene. Nor did
either woman testify at the trial. Defendant’s roommate briefly appears at
the top of the stairs on the body camera video.
Law and Analysis
In his sole assignment of error, defendant asserts that the evidence
was insufficient to uphold the conviction, and specifically that the State
failed to prove that he was the one who fired the gun. He avers that there
was no eyewitness testimony presented at trial and that no one observed him
with the gun or witnessed him discharge the gun. Defendant argues that
although a projectile, casing, and gun were retrieved from the apartment, this
circumstantial evidence did not establish that he was the person who fired
the gun. Defendant argues that because the evidence was wholly
circumstantial, the State was required to exclude every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence, which it failed to do. He argues that his girlfriend
or roommate could have easily shot the weapon, but neither gave a statement
or testified at trial. Defendant avers that because the State presented
24-KA-14 4 “essentially no evidence” that he was the shooter, the conviction must be
reversed.
The State argues that defendant’s statements taken together and the
evidence recovered at the scene refute the asserted “unreasonable hypothesis
of innocence” theory that one of the women could have been responsible for
discharging the gun.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must
determine that the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, or a mixture of
both, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to
convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime have
been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Mickel, 09-953 (La. App. 5
Cir. 5/11/10), 41 So.3d 532, 534, writ denied, 10-1357 (La. 1/7/11), 52
So.3d 885. A review of the record for sufficiency of the evidence does not
require the court to ask whether it believes that the evidence at the trial
established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Gatson, 21-156, 21-
157 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/29/21), 334 So.3d 1021, 1034, citing State v. Jones,
08-20 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/15/08), 985 So.2d 234, 240. Rather, the reviewing
court is required to consider the whole record and determine whether any
rational trier of fact would have found the State proved the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The requirement that
the evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution
requires the reviewing court to defer to “the actual trier of fact’s rational
credibility calls, evidence weighing and inference drawing.” Id., citing State
v. Caffrey, 08-717 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/12/09), 15 So.3d 198, 202, writ denied,
09-1305 (La. 2/5/10), 27 So.3d 297.
Evidence may be either direct or circumstantial. Circumstantial
evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which
24-KA-14 5 the existence of the main fact can be inferred according to reason and
common experience. Id. When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the
commission of an offense, La. R.S. 15:438 mandates that “[A]ssuming every
fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must
exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” This is not a separate
test from the Jackson standard, but rather provides a helpful basis for
determining the existence of reasonable doubt. State v. Wooten, 99-181 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 6/1/99), 738 So.2d 672, 675, writ denied, 99-2057 (La. 1/14/00),
753 So.2d 208.
The reviewing court is not required to determine whether another
possible hypothesis of innocence suggested by the defendant offers an
exculpatory explanation of events. State v. Baham, 14-653 (La. App. 5 Cir.
3/11/15), 169 So.3d 558, 566, writ denied, 15-40 (La. 3/24/16), 190 So.3d
1189. Rather, the reviewing court must determine whether the possible
alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could
not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
Where there is conflicting testimony as to factual matters, the question
of the credibility of the witnesses is within the sound discretion of the trier
of fact, who may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any
witness. State v. Rowan, 97-21 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/29/97), 694 So.2d 1052,
1056. Reviewing courts will not re-weigh the credibility of witnesses on
appeal. Id., citing State v. Bovie, 95-474 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/28/95), 665
So.2d 558, 560-61. Ultimately, all evidence, both direct and circumstantial,
must be sufficient to support the conclusion that the defendant is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Wooten, 738 So.2d at 675.
La. R.S. 14:94(A) defines the offense of illegal use of a weapon in
pertinent part as “the intentional or criminally negligent discharging of any
firearm, . . . where it is foreseeable that it may result in death or great bodily
24-KA-14 6 harm to a human being.” Defendant does not dispute that the evidence
presented at trial was constitutionally sufficient to establish that the firearm
was negligently discharged such that it was foreseeable that it may result in
death or great bodily harm to a human being as required by La. R.S.
14:94(A). Instead, defendant contends that the hypothesis that the gun was
fired by either defendant’s girlfriend or roommate is sufficiently reasonable
that no rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he
was the offender.
We find that a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence
presented was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of illegal use of a
weapon in violation of La. R.S. 14:94.
The deputies testified that defendant’s shirt was covered in blood
when they arrived, which was verified by the body camera video. Defendant
admitted that he was fighting with his girlfriend, that they were throwing
things around, and that he had punched a glass mirror, which caused him to
cut himself. The deputies found physical evidence at the scene that an
argument had occurred in the apartment. Further, the deputies found a
projectile, spent casing, and damaged floor from a bullet in the balcony area.
And the deputies found a gun with blood on it, stuffed in a sofa, exactly
where defendant told them they would find it. Defendant even admitted that
it was his gun but continued to deny that the gun had been fired during the
argument by himself or anyone else, intentionally or accidentally.
Although defendant stated on the video camera that he did not
remember shooting a gun and that neither he nor his girlfriend shot a gun,
when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and considering
all of the direct and circumstantial evidence adduced, the evidence was
sufficient to convince a rational tried of fact that all of the elements of the
crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
24-KA-14 7 Errors Patent Discussion
The Court reviewed the record for errors patent according to La.
C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); and State v.
Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1990). The review reveals no
errors patent in this case.
Decree
Accordingly, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED
24-KA-14 8 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIRST DEPUTY CLERK SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY AUGUST 22, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
24-KA-14 E-NOTIFIED 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK) HONORABLE FRANK A. BRINDISI (DISTRICT JUDGE) JULIET L. CLARK (APPELLEE) THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE) HOLLI A. HERRLE-CASTILLO (APPELLANT)
MAILED HONORABLE PAUL D. CONNICK, JR. (APPELLEE) DISTRICT ATTORNEY TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 200 DERBIGNY STREET GRETNA, LA 70053