State of Louisiana versus David White

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: November 15, 2023
• Docket: 55,330-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered November 15, 2023. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,330-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

DAVID WHITE Appellant

Appealed from the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana Trial Court No. 20CR30685

Honorable Amy Burford McCartney, Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Meghan Harwell Bitoun

CHARLES B. ADAMS Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

EDWIN L. BLEWER ETHAN ARBUCKLE LISA D. LOBRANO Assistant District Attorneys

Before PITMAN, COX, and ELLENDER, JJ. COX, J.

This criminal appeal arises out of the 42nd Judicial District Court,

DeSoto Parish, Louisiana. David White (“White”) was charged by bill of

indictment on March 2, 2020, with second degree murder in violation of La.

R.S. 14:30.1. White was found guilty as charged by a unanimous jury and

sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of probation, parole,

or suspension of sentence. White now appeals, challenging the admission of

certain autopsy photos introduced at trial. For the following reasons, we

affirm.

FACTS

On January 31, 2020, DeSoto Parish officers were dispatched to 914

Railroad Avenue in Mansfield, Louisiana, concerning a gunshot victim, later

identified as Tiffany Wilson (“Wilson”). After speaking with the

homeowner, Lisa Moore (“Moore”), officers learned that White shot Wilson

multiple times before he fled the scene. After officers located White near

Blunt Mill Road, he was arrested and taken into custody for Wilson’s death.

On September 28, 2022, before trial and outside the presence of the

jury, counsel for White objected to the introduction of State’s Exhibits S-5

through S-7 and S-43 through S-52. During the hearing, defense counsel

argued that the photos of the victim were unnecessary and would only serve

to “inflame the passions of members of the [j]ury.” In response, the State

argued it was “entitled to show the gravity of the offense,” and the number

of photos sought to be introduced was reduced to show the “bare minimum

number of photos necessary to show the wounds that [were] described in

[the coroner’s] autopsy report.” In overruling the objection, the trial court stated it reviewed the photos

in question and highlighted that the instant matter concerned a second degree

murder charge where the State was required to show evidence regarding the

victim and the wounds which caused her death. In acknowledging that one

of the photos sought to be introduced depicted a “pretty substantial wound,”

the trial court determined that overall, the reduced number of photos in this

matter, when compared to other photos previously admitted for the same or

similar offenses, were not so overly gruesome that they should be removed

from the jury’s presence.

Jury trial proceeded on September 29, 2022, and the following

pertinent facts were elicited through the testimony of witnesses, including

police officers and forensic professionals involved in the case.1

Deputy Gabriel Whitaker (“Dep. Whitaker”), patrol deputy for

DeSoto Parish Sheriff’s Office (“DPSO”), testified he responded to a report

that a woman had been shot multiple times, was not breathing, and was

unresponsive. Dep. Whitaker stated that when he arrived, he saw the victim

lying on the porch of the home on her back surrounded by blood with

several bullet wounds on her body. He explained that he attempted to revive

Wilson through chest compressions until emergency services arrived but was

unsuccessful.

Next, Johnny Sudds, Jr. (“Sudds”) testified that on the day in

question, he was next door visiting his grandmother when he heard a series

of gunshots. Sudds testified that when he went outside to find out what

1 Beulah Wilson, the victim’s mother, testified Wilson had three children and worked as a CNA. Tabatha Tucker, communications supervisor,confirmed that she received a 911 call on January 31, 2020, concerning the shooting.

2 happened, he saw a black male standing near a white truck just outside of

Moore’s home. Sudds explained that although he never saw the man shoot

anyone, he did see him reloading the gun. Sudds stated that when he left to

get help, he heard two more shots, returned to the area, and saw the same

man leaving in the white truck. Sudds then explained he went to Moore’s

home to help until officers arrived.

Russ Jones (“Inv. Jones”), a criminal investigator for DPSO, testified

he was dispatched to 914 Railroad Avenue, where his primary responsibility

was to photograph the area. Inv. Jones then identified several photos the

State introduced into evidence. He generally testified that the photos

depicted Wilson and her injuries, the location where Wilson was shot, as

well as surrounding items in relation to where she was found. Inv. Jones

then identified several more photos that depicted various bullet holes on the

screened portion of the porch and home where Wilson was shot, clothing in

a laundry basket that was partially overturned, the wheelchair ramp leading

up to the home, and Wilson’s car. After he identified several spent .357

shell casings and bullets, Inv. Jones explained that officers found several

deformed bullets and holes in the home and surrounding furniture that were

also hit during the shooting.

Isaiah “Donte” Phillips (“Officer Phillips”), a patrol officer for DPSO,

testified he received information from dispatch that a black male identified

in a shooting on 914 Railroad Avenue was located near Blunt Mill Road in a

white truck. Officer Phillips stated that after he reported the license plate of

a truck that matched the description and confirmed that White was the

driver, other officers blocked the vehicle, and forced White to stop. Officer

Phillips stated that although White was ordered to exit the vehicle, White 3 refused and yelled for the officers to just “shoot [him]” because his life was

over. Officer Phillips testified that officers then waited for Captain James

Clements (“Cpt. Clements”), who was then able to arrest and take White into

custody.

Cpt. Clements then identified White in open court and testified that on

January 31, 2020, he received two phone calls from White. After the State

introduced both recorded calls, Cpt. Clements testified that during the call

White wanted to turn himself in, saying, “Clements, this is David. I done

[expletive] up.” Cpt. Clements explained that he went to Blunt Mill Road,

arrested White, and brought him into custody.

Travis Chellette (“Inv. Chellette”), a criminal investigator for DPSO,

testified that on January 31, 2020, he was called to collect and photograph

evidence from White’s truck. Inv. Chellette testified he documented the

following items: 1) a revolver on the center console with six unspent .357

shells; 2) a brown belt and black holster for the revolver in the passenger

compartment; 3) several spent shell casings that matched the caliber of the

revolver; and 4) White’s key and wallet.

Next, Deputy Jacqes Burton (“Dep. Burton”) of DPSO, testified that

his primary role in the investigation was to interview White and other

witnesses. Dep. Burton stated that when he interviewed White, he learned

that White had been in a relationship with Wilson, but in the week before the

shooting, Wilson ended the relationship following an argument. Because

White believed Wilson cheated, he went to Moore’s house, where he knew

Wilson was working, to exchange her clothing and other personal items for

the extra key to his house.

4 Phillip Stout (“Stout”), the supervisor for the firearms division of

North Louisiana Crime Lab and an expert in firearms identification, testified

next. Stout stated he examined the recovered revolver, five fired cartridge

cases recovered from the scene of the shooting, and six fired cartridge cases

recovered from White’s vehicle. Stout then explained the process used to

determine whether the recovered revolver could have fired the cartridge

cases and bullets found at the scene. He stated that after his examination, it

was ultimately determined that all of the examined cartridge cases were fired

from the revolver officers recovered from White’s truck.

Next, Moore testified that she hired Wilson as a CNA to assist in the

care of her husband who struggled with mobility following a stroke. Moore

identified White in open court and testified she knew Wilson and White

were in a relationship and that White would occasionally pick Wilson up

after her shift ended. Moore testified that on the day of the shooting, Wilson

arrived at her home around 8:30 a.m. Moore recalled that Wilson played a

voicemail White left on her phone, where White generally accused Wilson

of cheating, and noted that White did not sound upset or angry. Moore

stated that around noon, she and Wilson heard a car horn. Moore explained

that after she saw White’s truck outside, she went back into the room with

her husband, and Wilson went outside.

Moore recalled that about ten minutes later, she heard a series of

gunshots and a noise at the door. She explained that when she went to see

what happened, she saw Wilson lying on the porch just in front of the door

with a gunshot wound on her side. Moore stated she saw White at the end of

the ramp attached to the home, reloading a gun. Moore testified that she

pled with White not to shoot again because her husband was inside, and 5 White repeatedly told her not to call the police. Moore stated she ignored

White, went back into the home, and dialed 911 before she heard another

series of gunshots. Moore testified that when the shooting stopped, she went

back outside, Wilson was unresponsive, and there was more blood

underneath her. Moore then testified that she attempted to perform CPR on

Wilson, but was unable to revive her.

Dr. Joshua Sanderson (“Dr. Sanderson”) was then accepted as an

expert in forensic psychiatry. Dr. Sanderson testified he was previously

appointed to evaluate whether White was competent to stand trial and

whether he met the requisite criteria for sanity. Dr. Sanderson testified that

during his evaluation, he considered and reviewed materials supplied to him

from the court as well as White’s own uninterrupted account of the incident.

He stated that after two evaluations, he diagnosed White with major

depressive disorder, an unspecified intellectual disability, and schizophrenia.

Dr. Sanderson concluded that despite the diagnoses, White, at the time

of the offense, was able to discern the difference between right and wrong.

He noted that this was evidenced by White providing a rationale for his

actions, namely that: 1) White was upset with Wilson for allegedly stealing

money from him, 2) Wilson’s potential infidelity, and 3) Wilson offended

White by calling him derogatory names. Dr. Sanderson further noted that

White’s behavior following the shooting also indicated his ability to discern

right from wrong as White attempted to conceal his actions when he told

Moore not to call the police, fled from the scene, and then called Cpt.

Clements to turn himself in, where he admitted he “messed up.” On cross-

examination, Dr. Sanderson acknowledged the possibility that a person

could satisfy the legal definition of insanity during the commission of an 6 offense and later discern that their actions were wrong. Dr. Sanderson

explained that generally, for this to occur, a delusional construct must be in

place, but this was not present during the instant offense.

Finally, Dr. James Traylor (“Dr. Traylor”), who performed the

autopsy on Wilson, testified as an expert in forensic pathology regarding the

results of the autopsy. Dr. Traylor testified that Wilson’s cause of death was

homicide as she was shot 12 times, with 11 of the gunshots being

penetrating shots, which meant there was one hole for each gunshot, and one

being perforating, such that there was both an entry and exit wound. Dr.

Traylor explained that the gunshots were fired from some distance away

from where Wilson stood as there was no evidence of close or immediate

range of fire.

The State then introduced several photos of Wilson and her injuries,

which Dr. Traylor identified for the court. From the photos, Dr. Traylor

described and generally explained the placement of each gunshot wound on

Wilson’s body. Dr. Traylor stated that Wilson sustained several different

fatal wounds, but the bullet that struck Wilson in the chest was the most life-

threatening as it tore a hole through the right ventricle of the heart.

After closing arguments, White was convicted as charged by a

unanimous jury. On October 20, 2022, the trial court, after hearing victim

impact statements and reviewing White’s criminal history, sentenced him to

life imprisonment at hard labor for second degree murder, to be served

without the possibility of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

DISCUSSION

By White’s sole assignment of error, he argues the admission of the

victim’s autopsy photos over his objections was unnecessary and gruesome, 7 inflammatory, and unduly prejudicial, thereby warranting a reversal of his

conviction. Additionally, White claims State’s evidence S-43 through S-52,

as well as three additional crime scene photos, should not have been

admitted because the issue before the trial court was not the cause of

Wilson’s death, but whether he possessed the requisite intent to commit the

offense. In contrast, the State argues the photos were properly admitted

because they were specifically introduced to positively identify the victim,

establish cause of death, location and placement of wounds, and “satisfy the

elements of second degree murder.”

The standard by which gruesome photos may be admitted as evidence

at trial is well settled, and in State v. Huff, 27,212 (La. App. 2 Cir. 08/23/95),

660 So. 2d 529, writ denied, 96-0212 (La. 05/01/97), 693 So. 2d 754, this

Court previously expounded that:

Photographs which illustrate any fact or issue in the case, or are relevant to describe the person, place or thing depicted, are generally admissible. Autopsy photographs are admissible to corroborate other evidence establishing the cause of death, the manner in which the death occurred, and the location, severity, and number of the wounds.

As such, photographic evidence will be admitted unless it is so gruesome

that it overwhelms the juror’s reason and leads them to convict without

sufficient other evidence. State v. Wilson, 50,865 (La. App. 2 Cir.

11/11/16), 208 So. 3d 999. The admission of “gruesome photographs is not

reversible error unless it is clear that their probative value is substantially

outweighed by their prejudicial effect.” Id.

However, even when the cause of death is undisputed, the State is

entitled to the moral force of its evidence and post-mortem photographs of

murder victims are admissible to prove corpus delicti, to corroborate other

8 evidence establishing cause of death, as well as the location and placement

of wounds, and to provide positive identification of the victims. Id.; State v.

Koon, 96-1208 (La. 5/20/97), 704 So. 2d 756, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1001,

118 S. Ct. 570, 139 L. Ed. 2d 410 (1997). Moreover, a district court’s ruling

with respect to the admissibility of photographs will not be overturned

unless it is clear the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its

probative value. State v. Wilson, supra.

Although White asserts that the issue before the trial court was

whether he maintained the requisite intent to commit the offense, thereby

diminishing the necessity of the autopsy photos, we note that when defense

counsel lodged its objection to the admissibility of the photos, no argument

was made to address White’s mental capacity. Instead, counsel primarily

argued that the autopsy photos would inflame the jury because they were

gruesome in nature. Therefore, the only issue before the court is whether the

autopsy photos were so gruesome in nature they would inflame the jury and

were so prejudicial as to outweigh their probative value.

After reviewing the evidence, we cannot say the trial court abused its

discretion in admitting the autopsy photos of the victim, nor can we

conclude that the photos in question were so gruesome as to unfairly

prejudice White’s case. We first note, as the trial court highlighted, that the

State significantly reduced the number of autopsy photos sought to be

submitted. In doing so, the State presented the minimum number of photos

necessary to reflect Dr. Traylor’s autopsy report, who later opined that any

of the 12 gunshot wounds Wilson suffered could have been fatal, but noted

the wound in Wilson’s chest was the most life-threatening.

9 This court recognizes that any photo depicting multiple gunshot

wounds could be considered gruesome in nature; however, in this case, none

of the photos introduced at trial were so particularly gruesome or graphic in

nature that it would inflame the jury. As the trial court noted, the photos in

question merely served to identify the victim, show different angles of the

wounds, and demonstrate the manner in which she died.

Accordingly, we find that this assignment of error lacks merit.

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, White’s conviction and sentence for

second degree murder are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.