 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Robinson4/14/2004
as it was too incredible to be believed. In the interest of clarity and economy, we address all of defendant's objections to Goodspeed's testimony Section II, which addresses defendant's second assignment of error.
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The defendant does not dispute that four first degree murders occurred in this case, therefore, the issue before this court is not whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove the shooter's specific intent to kill or cause great bodily harm, as all four of the victims in this crime were found shot in the head at a close range. Instead, this Court must determine whether the evidence presented by the state was legally sufficient to prove the defendant's identity as the perpetrator. To that end, defendant contends that the State failed to exclude the hypothesis that the murder was committed by another person. He points to the following evidence as creating a hypothesis of his innocence: the failure of the State to present an eyewitness to the shootings, the fact that the murder weapon was never recovered, gunshot residue tests were not conducted on his hands and forearms to determine whether he had recently discharged a firearm, and"blowback" blood spatter evidence was not resent on his clothing. The defendant argues that the evidence presented by the State supports his version of the events, which was that he entered the house, and upon surveying the horrifying scene, panicked and fled. We disagree, and find that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to prove defendant's identity as the perpetrator of these crimes to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
With regard to the three adult victims, in order to convict the defendant of first degree murder, the State was required to prove: 1) that the defendant possessed the "specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon more than one person." La. Rev. Stat. 14:30A(3). With regard to the infant victim, the State urged that in addition to having the specific intent to harm more than one person, defendant also possessed specific intent to kill "a victim who is under the age of twelve." La. Rev. Stat. 14:30A(5). Specific criminal intent is defined as "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. Rev. Stat. 14: 10(1). Specific intent need not be proven as a fact, but may be inferred from the defendant's actions and the circumstances of the transaction. State v. Maxie , 93-2158, (La. 4/10/95), 653 So.2d 526, 532. Deliberately pointing and firing a deadly weapon at close range are circumstances which will support a finding of specific intent to kill. State v. Seals, 684 So.2d 368, 373 (La. 1996) (citing State v. Williams, 383 So.2d 369 (La. 1980); State v. Procell, 365 So.2d 484 (La. 1978)).
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, Louisiana appellate courts are controlled by the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1979). Under this standard, the appellate court "must determine that the evidence, 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 had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La. 6/29/01) 796 So.2d 649, 657 (citing State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La. 1984).
When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15: 438 requires that "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|