State v. Harris

266 So. 3d 953
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedFebruary 27, 2019
DocketNo. 52,541-KA
StatusPublished

This text of 266 So. 3d 953 (State v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Harris, 266 So. 3d 953 (La. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, C.J.

The defendant, James Ondrey Harris, was charged by bill of information with attempted second degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and 14:30.1. After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty as charged. Defendant's motions for new *956trial and for post-verdict judgment of acquittal were denied. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve 50 years at hard labor, without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

The record shows that on September 28, 2015, Laconna Lashay Smith was transported via ambulance from her home in Monroe, Louisiana, to St. Francis Medical Center after being severely beaten and choked by the defendant. Smith was intubated and airlifted that same day to University Health Hospital in Shreveport, where she was admitted into the ICU. Days later, when Smith was able to speak, she confirmed to police that defendant was her assailant. Defendant was arrested and charged with the attempted second degree murder of Smith.

After a trial, defendant was found guilty as charged by a unanimous jury. His pro se motions for new trial and motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal were denied following a hearing. Defendant was sentenced to 50 years at hard labor to be served without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

The defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for attempted second degree murder. Defendant asserts that the state failed to prove that he possessed the specific intent to kill Smith.

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; State v. Tate , 2001-1658 (La. 5/20/03), 851 So.2d 921, cert. denied , 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1604, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004) ; State v. Robinson , 50,643 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/22/16), 197 So.3d 717, writ denied , 2016-1479 (La. 5/19/17), 221 So.3d 78. This standard, now legislatively embodied in La. C.Cr.P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder. State v. Pigford , 2005-0477 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517.

The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence. State v. Smith , 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442 ; State v. Mitchell , 50,188 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/18/15), 181 So.3d 800, writ denied , 2015-2356 (La. 1/9/17), 214 So.3d 863. A reviewing court affords great deference to a jury's decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part. State v. Mitchell, supra .

To sustain a conviction for attempted second degree murder, the state must prove that the defendant: (1) intended to kill the victim; and (2) committed an overt act tending toward the accomplishment of the victim's death. La. R.S. 14:27 ; 14:30.1. Although the statute for the completed crime of second degree murder allows for a conviction based on "specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm," La. R.S. 14:30.1, attempted second degree murder requires specific intent to kill. State v. Bishop , 2001-2548 (La. 1/14/03), 835 So.2d 434. Proof of specific intent to inflict great bodily harm is insufficient for a conviction for attempted second degree murder. State v. Lewis , 51,672 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/15/17), 245 So.3d 233 ;

*957State v. Patterson , 50,305 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/18/15), 184 So.3d 739, writ denied , 2015-2333 (La. 3/24/16), 190 So.3d 1190.

Specific intent is that 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). Such state of mind can be formed in an instant. State v. Murray , 49,418 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/14/15), 161 So.3d 918, writ denied , 2015-0379 (La. 4/8/16), 191 So.3d 582. Specific intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the offense and the conduct of the defendant. State v. Bishop , supra. Specific intent to kill may also be inferred from the extent and severity of the victim's injuries. See State v. Harrell , 2001-841 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/26/02), 811 So.2d 1015. The determination of whether the requisite intent is present is a question for the trier of fact. State v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Robertson v. Casual Corner Group, Inc
541 U.S. 905 (Supreme Court, 2004)
State v. Smith
661 So. 2d 442 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1995)
State v. Dorthey
623 So. 2d 1276 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1993)
State v. Lee
826 So. 2d 616 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)
State v. Swayzer
989 So. 2d 267 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2008)
State v. Ates
989 So. 2d 259 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2008)
State v. Weaver
805 So. 2d 166 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2002)
State v. Pigford
922 So. 2d 517 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2006)
State v. Tate
851 So. 2d 921 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2003)
State v. Jones
398 So. 2d 1049 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1981)
State v. Lathan
953 So. 2d 890 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2007)
State v. Williams
893 So. 2d 7 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2004)
State v. Shumaker
945 So. 2d 277 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2006)
State v. Smith
433 So. 2d 688 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1983)
State v. Lanclos
419 So. 2d 475 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1982)
State v. Bishop
835 So. 2d 434 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2003)
State v. Harrell
811 So. 2d 1015 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)
State v. Robinson
948 So. 2d 379 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2007)
State v. Murray
161 So. 3d 918 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 So. 3d 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harris-lactapp-2019.