State v. Tassin
This text of 472 So. 2d 340 (State v. Tassin) 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.
Opinion
STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Michael J. TASSIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
*341 Kathrine Williamson, Small, Williamson, Brocato & Fournet, Alexandria, for defendant-appellant.
J. Edward Knoll, Dist. Atty., David LaFargue, Asst. Dist. Atty., Marksville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DOMENGEAUX, STOKER and DOUCET, JJ.
DOUCET, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for manufacture and possession of a bomb.
On June 19, 1983, sixteen year old Shane Desselle brought a paper bag containing what appeared to be three bombs to Chief Earl Greenhouse of the Marksville Police Department, and stated that he had received them from the defendant. Approximately one month prior to the incident, Chief Greenhouse began to receive information from a confidential informant that the defendant was making explosive devices. On July 18, 1983, the confidential informant went to Chief Greenhouse' residence and told him that the defendant was manufacturing bombs and intended to destroy someone's car with them. The informant stated that the bombs were at the residence of Michael Tassin, located at 115 Overton Street, Marksville, Louisiana. The next day, Chief Greenhouse received the bag containing the bombs from Shane Desselle.
On July 20, 1983, Chief Greenhouse called Trooper Clifford Devereaux, a narcotics officer with the Louisiana State Police, and asked him to contact the State Police Bomb Squad. Trooper Stone, a technician and investigator with the Louisiana State Police Explosives Control Unit, was sent to examine the items in Chief Greenhouse's possession. He made a preliminary determination that they were homemade bombs. Shortly thereafter, a warrant to search the defendant's residence was issued by Judge Lee.
On July 20, 1984, at approximately 2:50 P.M., the search warrant was executed by Chief Greenhouse who was assisted by David Raynes, Jeff Stone, Clifford Devereaux *342 and Jim Pease of the State Police. During the course of the search, Chief Greenhouse seized two green "military type" time fuses, a zip-lock bag containing black residue later determined to be gunpowder, and one piece of PVC plastic pipe. Chief Greenhouse delivered these items to Trooper Devereaux, who delivered them to Trooper Stone. Forensic scientists at the State Police Crime Lab determined that the three homemade bombs contained the same kind of time fuses and gunpowder as those seized at the defendant's residence. Trooper Stone also determined that the seized PVC pipe could have been used to manufacture a bomb.
The defendant, Michael J. "Coon" Tassin, was charged by a bill of information with the crime of manufacture and possession of a bomb, a violation of La.R.S. 14:54.3. On May 7, 1984, the defendant waived his right to trial by jury. On May 10, 1984, the defendant was tried and found guilty as charged. At the sentencing hearing on June 28, 1984, the defendant pled guilty to being a habitual offender, third offense, under La.R.S. 15:529.1 and was sentenced to serve ten years at hard labor in the Department of Corrections. The defendant appeals. Only three of the defendant's assignments of error were briefed. Assignments of error which are not briefed are considered abandoned. State v. Dewey, 408 So.2d 1255 (La.1982); State v. Crawford, 441 So.2d 813 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1983). The three remaining assignments of error concern the sufficiency of the evidence. Therefore, we will consider them together.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying the motion for directed verdict at the close of the State's case, in finding the defendant guilty as charged, and in denying his motion for new trial. The issue presented on appeal is whether the State established beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the offense charged.
La.R.S. 14:54.3 provides that:
"It shall be unlawful for any person without proper license as required by R.S. 40:1471.1 et seq. knowingly and intentionally to manufacture, possess or have under his control any bomb.
A bomb, for the purposes of this Section, is defined as an explosive compound or mixture with a detonator or initiator or both, but does not include small arms ammunition.
As used herein the term "explosive" means gunpowders, powders used for blasting, all forms of high explosives, blasting materials, fuses (other than electric circuit breakers), detonators, and other detonating agents, smokeless powders, and any chemical compounds, mechanical mixture, or device that contains any oxidizing and combustible units, or other ingredients, in such proportions, quantities, or packing that ignition1 by fire, by friction, by concussion, by percussion, or by detonation of the compound, mixture, or device or any part thereof may cause an explosion.
This section shall not apply to fireworks possessed within the meaning and contemplation of R.S. 51:650 et seq.
Whoever violates this Section shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars or be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than twenty years or both.
Added by Acts 1974, No. 375, § 1. Amended by Acts 1979, No. 654, § 1."
When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982). It is the role of the fact finder to weigh the respective credibilities of the witnesses. The appellate court should not second guess the credibility determinations of the trier of fact beyond the application of the sufficiency evaluations allowed under the Jackson standard of review. See State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559 (La.1983).
*343 At trial, testimony revealed that Shane Desselle, who was a friend of the defendant, drove to the defendant's residence on July 19, 1983. Mr. Desselle testified that when he arrived, the defendant told him that he had something to give him and they entered the residence. Mr. Desselle testified that, once inside, the defendant showed him a bag containing bombs. The defendant told Desselle that he would put it in Desselle's car. Mr. Desselle testified that he told the defendant he didn't want them but that the defendant placed the bombs on the rear floor board of his car in spite of his protest. Testimony indicated that the defendant wiped each bomb for fingerprints before he placed them in Desselle's car. Mr. Desselle testified that shortly after this incident, he brought the bag of bombs to Chief Earl Greenhouse, Marksville Police Department.
Mr. Desselle testified that on July 17, 1983, the defendant mentioned that he was interested in making some bombs, so he gave the defendant some gunpowder. Mr. Desselle testified that the defendant had mentioned, on a previous occasion, that he wanted to blow up three cars and that on July 19, 1983, the defendant stated that he wanted to "get rid of" Bobby Sherman, Fuzzy Bernard, and Pookie Francois.
Jason Conrad Falls, 13 years old, testified somewhat hesitantly that he had seen a pipe and some fuses on the counter in the defendant's residence.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
472 So. 2d 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tassin-lactapp-1985.