 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Desilva12/9/1998
idence shows she was not aware Ms. Benjamin was intending to rob the victim as he walked with them. In support of her argument, she cites State v. Dozier, 553 So.2d 911 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1989) , where this court reversed the defendant's manslaughter conviction. The victim and the co-defendant had argued and fought earlier on the morning of the shooting. At the time of the shooting, the co-defendant's car was blocking the victim's car, and the co-defendant ignored the victim's request to move the car. The victim then punched the co-defendant, and the defendant, who was in the co-defendant's car, pulled a gun and pointed it first at the victim's brother and then at the victim. The defendant and the victim began arguing, and the co-defendant pulled a gun and shot the victim. On review, this court reversed the defendants manslaughter conviction, finding the State failed to show that the defendant had any knowledge that the co-defendant was going to shoot the victim. This court also found that the defendant's actions, including pulling the gun, were consistent with a claim of self-defense, including his belief that the victim's brother was going to jump him.
In State v. Wiley, 95-396 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/20/96), 672 So.2d 185 , also cited by the defendant in this case, the defendant and the co-defendant were both fifteen-year-old runaways. They stopped at the victims' house to use the telephone and get some water. While on the porch, the co-defendant told the defendant he was going to kill the victims. She replied, "No." The co-defendant fatally shot one victim on the porch, entered the house and fatally shot a second victim, and then chased and shot at a third victim, who escaped. The defendant fled with the co-defendant and threw the co-defendant's gun out of the window of the victims' stolen truck. On appeal, the court reversed the defendant's conviction, finding that the State failed to prove that the defendant knew the co-defendant was going to commit the robbery and killings. The court noted the victim told the co-defendant "no" when he stated he was going to kill the victims that she stayed on the porch while he was committing the crimes inside the house, and that she refused to get the keys to the victims' truck. The court noted the defendant's actions at best would support an accessory conviction.
The defendant also cites State v. Smith, 26,661, 26,622, and 26,263 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/1/95), 651 So.2d 890 , where the three defendants were involved in a drive-by shooting which left one person dead and one person injured. On appeal of their murder and attempted murder convictions, the court found sufficient evidence to support each conviction. All three defendants were present at a party earlier in the evening when the drive-by shooting was suggested. All three defendants were in the cars used in the shooting, and two of the defendants were seen with guns just prior to the shooting. The third defendant was driving one of the cars and had dropped off his girlfriend just prior to driving to the scene of the shooting. The court found that the evidence of the gun possession by two of the defendants just prior to the first shot being fired, and the eyewitness testimony that one of them actually fired his gun, was sufficient to support the convictions of both of those defendants. With respect to the driver, the court found he was a principal to the shooting, noting that he knew about the shooting plan, he agreed to turn off the lights in his car as he neared the scene, and he saw one of the other defendants with a gun in his car just prior to the shooting.
In State v. Pierre, 93-0893 (La. 2/3/94), 631 So.2d 427, in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the defendant's manslaughter convic
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|