State of Louisiana Versus Emile J. Delaneuville, Jr.
State of Louisiana Versus Emile J. Delaneuville, Jr., No. 19-K-469 (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. Oct. 21, 2019).
The holding in the court’s own words
Although circumstantial in nature, when considering the testimony adduced at the preliminary examination hearing, on the showing made, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding probable cause, as the State presented prima facie evidence sufficient to justify a man of average caution in the belief that defendant committed the charged offense.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Strickland 900 So. 2d 885
- State v. Strickland 904 So. 2d 683
- State v. Lyons 18 So. 3d 1293
- State v. Jenkins 338 So. 2d 276
- State v. Baham 117 So. 3d 505
- State v. Lewis 28 So. 3d 548
- State v. Lewis 44 So. 3d 697
- State v. Bart 209 So. 3d 698
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 19-K-469
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
EMILE J. DELANEUVILLE, JR. COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY REVIEW
FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 19,47, DIVISION "B"
HONORABLE KIRK A. VAUGHN, JUDGE PRO TEMPORE PRESIDING
October 21, 2019
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and Hans J. Liljeberg
WRIT DENIED
JGG
SJW
HJL
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Bridget A. Dinvaut
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RELATOR,
EMILE J. DELANEUVILLE, JR.
Aaron P. Mollere
Travis J. Beslin
GRAVOIS, J.
Relator/defendant, Emile J. Delaneuville, Jr., seeks this Court’s supervisory
review of the trial court’s August 27, 2019 oral ruling, following a preliminary
examination conducted on that date, which found probable cause to charge
defendant with a violation of La. R.S. 14:94(A), illegal use of weapons or
dangerous instrumentalities. On the showing made, for the following reasons, we
find no error in the trial court’s ruling.
In his writ application, defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding
probable cause for the charged offense of illegal use of weapons or dangerous
instrumentalities, a violation of La. R.S. 14:94(A), because no evidence was
adduced at the preliminary examination hearing to prove that defendant (1) ever
fired a weapon on the date of the alleged offense and/or (2) that if a weapon was
fired, that it was done so in a manner where it would be foreseeable to result in
death or great bodily harm to a human being. Accordingly, defendant submits that
his immediate release from his bond obligation is warranted.
The purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is
probable cause to charge a defendant with a crime and hold him over for trial. La.
C.Cr.P. art. 296; State v. Strickland, 04-843 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/1/05), 900 So.2d
885, writ denied, 05-0820 (La. 6/17/05), 904 So.2d 683. A preliminary
examination after the filing of a bill of information does not determine the validity
of the charge brought against a defendant; instead, it determines whether there is
probable cause to deprive him of his liberty pending trial. State v. Lyons, 09-2198
(La. 10/20/09), 18 So.3d 1293 (citing State v. Jenkins, 338 So.2d 276 (La. 1976)).
At a preliminary examination, the State has the burden to show probable
cause to charge a defendant with the offense or with a lesser included offense. Id.
Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances are sufficient to justify a
19-K-469 1
man of average caution in the belief that the person has committed a crime. State
v. Baham, 13-0901 (La. 6/28/13), 117 So.3d 505, 507. At a preliminary
examination, the State is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant has committed the crime with which he is charged, but to meet the low
threshold of adducing prima facie evidence sufficient to justify a man of average
caution in the belief that the defendant has committed a crime. Id.
Thus, where the evidence adduced at the preliminary examination fails to
disclose probable cause to charge the defendant with the offense or with a lesser
included offense, the court shall order his release from custody or bail pursuant to
La. C.Cr.P. art. 296. Lyons, supra. This is not a judicial dismissal of the case and
the State may still proceed against the defendant. State v. Lewis, 09-0350 (La.
App. 4 Cir. 12/16/09), 28 So.3d 548, 552, writ denied, 10-0129 (La. 9/3/10), 44
So.3d 697.
In the present matter, upon review, on the showing made, we find that the
trial court did not err in finding probable cause to charge defendant with a violation
of illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities. In pertinent part, La. R.S.
14:94(A) provides that illegal use of weapons is the intentional or criminally
negligent discharging of any firearm, where it is foreseeable that it may result in
death or great bodily harm to a human being.
Officer Christopher Toups testified at the preliminary examination hearing
that defendant’s neighbor, Ray Morgan, indicated that he and defendant had
“ongoing issues.” Mr. Morgan reported to the police that on February 6, 2019,
while outside of his residence, he heard a gunshot and went to investigate. It was
at that time that he observed defendant standing by their fence with a “pistol” in his
hand yelling vulgarities. When officers arrived on the scene, defendant initially
refused to exit his residence stating that his weapons were loaded and that he was
19-K-469 2
“not coming out without weapons.” Further, upon execution of a search warrant of
defendant’s residence, multiple guns and some ammunition were found, as well as
a handgun hidden in an air vent. Despite a search outside, no spent shell casing
was found, although Officer Toups attributed that to the tall grass in the area.
Officer Toups testified that it was possible that if defendant fired a gun in the
residential neighborhood someone could have been harmed because “you never
know where a projectile goes to when you discharge or fire a weapon.”
Hearsay is admissible at a preliminary examination. La. C.E. art.
1101(B)(4); State v. Bart, 17-0038 (La. 2/2/17), 209 So.3d 698, 700. Although
circumstantial in nature, when considering the testimony adduced at the
preliminary examination hearing, on the showing made, we conclude that the trial
court did not err in finding probable cause, as the State presented prima facie
evidence sufficient to justify a man of average caution in the belief that defendant
committed the charged offense. Accordingly, this writ application is denied.
WRIT DENIED
19-K-469 3
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY MARY E. LEGNON
CHIEF JUDGE INTERIM CLERK OF COURT
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
OCTOBER 21, 2019 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
19-K-469
E-NOTIFIED
40TH DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE BRIDGET A. DINVAUT AARON P. MOLLERE (RELATOR) TRAVIS J. BESLIN (RELATOR)
(RESPONDENT)
MAILED
HON. KIRK A. VAUGHN (DISTRICT JUDGE)
JUDGE PRO TEMPORE
40TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
POST OFFICE BOX 280
EDGARD, LA 70049