 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Harris2/20/1998
LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 821 State v. Pooler, 96-1794 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/9/97); 696 So.2d 22. As the trier of fact, the jury was free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. Furthermore, where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. On appeal, this court will not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence to overturn a fact finder's determination of guilt. State v. Pooler, 96-1794, p. 56; 696 So.2d at 58.
At the time of the offense, and presently, LSA-R.S. 14:30.1 provides, in pertinent part: "Second degree murder is the killing of a human being: (1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm; . . ." Specific 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." LSA-R.S. 14:10. Specific intent need not be proven as a fact and may be inferred from the circumstances present and the actions of the defendant. Specific intent is a legal Conclusion to be resolved ultimately by the trier of fact. State v. Carter, 96-0337 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/8/96); 684 So.2d 432.
The defendant contends that his intoxication at the time of the offense prevented his formation of the specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. Evidence at trial established that the defendant drank every day until "buzz ." The defendant's co-worker Mr. Johnson testified that he, the defendant, and the victim did not drink more on the day of the murder than usual, and he described the defendant as normal. While the victim's girlfriend, Ms. Smith, testified that the men did not usually drink two pints of whiskey every day, she also testified that the defendant's behavior was normal the day of the offense. The amount of drinking did not impair the defendant's ability to perform routine acts, such as driving, walking, or talking, according to Mr. Johnson and Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson also testified that the defendant and the victim argued all of the time. While Demetric, the defendant's son, testified that he thought the defendant was intoxicated and that he saw the defendant stumbling when police led him away, he also testified that he never saw the defendant fall down. Rochelle, the defendant's daughter, testified that he had been drinking, his speech was slurred, and his walk was affected; she also testified that the defendant ordinarily drank around the house and that he and the victim commonly argued. While Sergeant Lomax and Officer Vincent, testified that the defendant was intoxicated, Sergeant Lomax also stated that the defendant seemed to understand his commands and was able to follow them without any problem, and that the defendant did not fall or stagger. Although the defendant had been drinking and may have been intoxicated, testimony established that he drank every day, he was able to drive himself and the victim to his house, he was able to respond to the police, and, after the shooting, he had a family member call the police. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have inferred beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not so intoxicated that it precluded the presence of specific criminal intent.
We must now determine whether the state produced sufficient evidence of the defendant's guilt of the crime of second degree murder. At the trial, the state presented the testimony establishing that the defendant fired a shot prior to shooting the vict
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|