State Of Louisiana v. Gerren Keith Welch

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2019 KA 0826

STATE OF LOUISIANA

W
VERSUS

GERREN WELCH

Judgment Rendered: FEB 2 12020

On Appeal from the
19' Judicial District Court,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 10- 05- 0206

The Honorable Richard D. Anderson, Judge Presiding

Hillar C. Moore, III Attorneys for the State of Louisiana
District Attorney
Dale R. Lee

Assistant District Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Prentice L. White Attorney for Defendant/Appellant,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Gerren Welch

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., GUIDRY AND BURRIS,, JJ.

1
Hon. William J. Burris, retired, is serving as judge pro tempore by special appointment of
the Louisiana Supreme Court.

BURRIS, J.

The defendant, Gerren Keith Welch, was charged by bill of information with

attempted second degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 30. 1 and La. R.S. 14: 27.

He pled not guilty. After a trial by jury, he was found guilty as charged. He was

sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of

probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The defendant now appeals, assigning

error to the sufficiency of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the

conviction and sentence.

FACTS

On or about August 24, 2005, officers of the Baton Rouge Police Department

BRPD) were dispatched to the scene of a shooting that took place on Seneca Street.

After arriving on the scene, officers learned that the victim, Sylvester Williams, had

been transported to a hospital by a civilian. While some officers were at the scene

of the shooting, others responded to the hospital. After his arrival at the hospital,

BRPD Detective Ross Williams came into contact with Denard Duheart, who

relayed information regarding the shooting.

According to Duheart and Williams,2 both of whom testified at trial, on the

night in question, Duheart and Williams arranged to meet the defendant on Seneca

Street.' Duheart drove and Williams sat in the front -passenger seat, as they were

2
Williams survived the shooting incident, although he suffered a gunshot wound to the back
of his head that resulted in a bullet being permanently lodged in his head. Both Duheart and
Kimoya Marshall Wells, a friend who was present at the scene shortly after the shooting, testified
that Williams did not bleed from the shooting, nor did the police locate any blood while processing
the vehicle. According to Duheart, X-rays later confirmed that the bullet remained in the victim' s
head. Due to the shooting, Williams' speech is impaired, and he suffers from partial paralysis.
Based on his trial testimony, for the most part, he recalled what happened that night up to the
moment he was shot.

3
At trial, Duheart, Williams, and Wells testified that they knew the defendant by his
nickname, " Jig." Duheart, Wells, and Williams had known each other for years, but were not as
familiar with the defendant. Duheart specifically testified that he had known the defendant for a
couple of months prior to the shooting and was more familiar with the defendant than was
Williams, while Wells testified that he met the defendant about a year before through one of his
customers, he did not really know him. Duheart further confirmed that he had " three or four" drug
transactions with the defendant before the night in question.

2

dropping off a female friend who was riding in the backseat. During the 11 o' clock

hour, they pulled up to their friend' s residence, she got out of Duheart' s truck, and a

vehicle occupied by the defendant and two other males approached! The defendant

got in the backseat of Duheart' s truck, and a tense exchange ensued over money the

defendant owed Duheart and Williams from a previous drug transaction.' The

defendant indicated that he had the money. Duheart began to turn his body toward

the backseat and saw the defendant bending over and acting as if he was counting

his money.' After turning around, Duheart realized that the defendant had a gun

pointed at Williams. Duheart described the defendant' s gun as a . 22 or .25 caliber,

small gun."
The defendant suddenly fired the gun, shooting Williams in the head.

Duheart specifically testified, " And as I started to turn around, I see that he had the

gun pointed to Sylvester head, and he fired, and when he fired, I jumped in the back

of the car, and we started wrestling, and I kind of like wrestled the gun out of his

hand." Williams specifically testified, " I had asked him `Where' s my money,' you

know. And he said, ` Hold up.' And, you know, `I' m going to give it to you.' And

before I knew it, he shot me, you know."

After Duheart wrestled the gun from the defendant, he began strangling the

defendant. The vehicle in which the defendant arrived then pulled up, and Duheart

heard the occupants say, " Shoot him, shoot him, shoot him." Fearing that one of the

occupants of the other vehicle had a gun, Duheart released the defendant, who

jumped out of Duheart' s truck and ran to the other vehicle as the driver took off.

4
Duheart testified that they were parked under a street light that was beaming into his truck.
5
Duheart testified the defendant owed them $ 1, 000. 00, explaining they provided the
defendant 200 ecstasy pills that sell for $5. 00 a piece. Williams testified the defendant owed them
two grand."

Duheart testified that he was able to see " a little money" in the defendant' s hands, but did
not believe it was the full two thousand dollars owed by the defendant.

3

Duheart ran to the home of Kimoya Marshall (" Wells")', a friend who lived next

door to the female whom Duheart and Williams had dropped off, and began

knocking on the front door while saying, " Call the police, call the police."

Considering Williams' condition, Duheart decided to transport him to the hospital

instead of waiting for an ambulance or the police.

Wells, who also testified at trial, was at a next- door neighbor' s residence at

the time. He came outside as he heard Duheart beating on his door. Wells indicated

that when he approached Duheart' s truck, he saw Williams, who was unresponsive

with his eyes " rolling in the back of his head." Wells also saw a gun on the backseat

of the truck, which he grabbed. After Duheart left to take Williams to the hospital,

Wells threw the gun in a grassy area near the interstate at Scenic Highway. Later,

about twenty minutes after Duheart left the scene to take Williams to the hospital,

Wells called Duheart to see what happened. When Duheart told Wells that the

defendant had shot Williams and that the police were looking for the gun, Wells

revealed that he had taken possession of the gun and " threw it somewhere." Duheart

conveyed this information to the police. Days later, Wells and Duheart went to the

police station and assisted the police in recovering the gun.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In the sole assignment of error, the defendant argues that the evidence is

insufficient to support the verdict. The defendant specifically claims the victim was

accidentally shot during the struggle over Duheart' s gun. Initially, as to the struggle

that the defendant claims resulted in the shooting, he first contends, " it was Duheart

who started struggling with [the defendant] when the shooting happened." He notes

that Duheart' s friend, Wells, took possession of the handgun after the shooting in an

7
At trial, the witness stated that his name is " Kimoya Charles Marshall," but he goes by the
nickname " Wells."

L!

effort to protect Duheart. He further notes that Wells did not initially inform the

police that he had taken the gun from Duheart' s truck. The defendant contends that

the physical evidence, including fingerprints, only proved the uncontested fact that

he was in Duheart' s truck at the time of the shooting, but did not prove that he was

the shooter. The defendant argues that the State' s case was merely based on the self-

serving testimony of Duheart, a man who admittedly sold illegal drugs. In an

apparent contradiction to his prior claim, the defendant concludes that the State was

not able to overcome the reasonable hypothesis of innocence that " Williams was

shot as a result of the struggle he had with Duheart inside the SUV." Further, the

defendant avers that it was reversible error for the trial court to accept the jury' s

guilty verdict, " considering that it would be difficult [to] truly identify [him] as the

person responsible for Williams' injuries."'

The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a

conviction is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct.

27819 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 ( 1979); see also La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 821( B); State

v. Ordodi, 06- 0207 ( La. 11/ 29/ 06), 946 So. 2d 654, 660; State v. Jackson, 18- 0261

La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 2/ 18), 265 So. 3d 928, 933, writ denied, 18- 1969 ( La. 4/22/ 19),

268 So. 3d 304. The Jackson standard of review, incorporated in Article 821, is an

S
During opening statements at trial, the defendant presented another argument that
seemingly conflicts with both of the above claims regarding a supposed struggle over the gun as it
discharged. Specifically, in giving his account of what happened after the defendant entered the
backseat of Duheart' s truck, defense counsel claimed the victim was dissatisfied with the amount
of money offered by the defendant and demanded more money at gunpoint. As defense counsel
further claimed, " Sylvester Williams pulls a gun, turns around in his seat and points it at Gerren
Welch .... Gerren reaches forward, grabs that weapon, both of them are tussling over the weapon.
The weapon fires. It went off and the bullet then strikes Sylvester in his head." Defense counsel
claimed that after the shooting, Duheart climbed into the backseat, attempted to grab the gun, and
tussled with the defendant over the gun before the defendant exited the vehicle and fled. The
defendant did not testify at trial.

5

objective standard for testing the overall evidence, both direct and circumstantial,

for reasonable doubt.

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, Louisiana Revised Statutes 15: 438

provides that the factfinder must be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every

reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See State v. Patorno, 01- 2585 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

6/ 21/ 02), 822 So. 2d 141, 144. When a case involves circumstantial evidence and

the trier of fact reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the

defense, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another

hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt. State v. Dyson, 16- 1571 ( La. App. 1

Cir. 6/ 2/ 17), 222 So. 3d 220, 228, writ denied, 17- 1399 ( La. 6/ 15/ 18), 257 So. 3d

A person is guilty of an attempt to commit an offense when he has a specific

intent to commit a crime and " does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending

directly toward the accomplishing of his object." La. R. S. 14: 27( A). Second degree

murder is the killing of a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill

or to inflict great bodily harm. La. R.S. 14: 30. 1( A)( 1). Specific criminal intent is

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. R. S. 14: 10( 1).

Though intent is a question of fact, it need not be proven as a fact. It may be

inferred from the circumstances of the transaction. Specific intent may be proven

by direct evidence, such as statements by a defendant, or by inference from

circumstantial evidence,
such as a defendant' s actions or facts depicting the

circumstances.
Specific intent is an ultimate legal conclusion to be resolved by the

factfinder. State v. Coleman, 17- 1045 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/ 13/ 18), 249 So. 3d 872,

877, writ denied, 18- 0830 (La. 2/ 18/ 19), 263 So. 3d 1155. To be guilty of attempted

second degree murder, a defendant must have the specific intent to kill and not

merely the specific intent to inflict great bodily harm. State v. Collins, 09- 2102 ( La.

App. 1 Cir. 6/ 28/ 10), 43 So. 3d 244, 251, writ denied, 10- 1893 ( La. 2/ 4/ 11), 57 So.

3d 311, cert. denied, 565 U.S. 818, 132 S. Ct. 99, 181 L.Ed.2d 27 ( 2011). Specific

intent to kill may be inferred from a defendant' s act of pointing a gun and firing at a

person.
State v. Delco, 06- 0504 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 15/ 06), 943 So. 2d 1143, 1146,

writ denied, 06- 2636 ( La. 8/ 15/ 07), 961 So. 2d 1160; State v. Maten, 04- 1718 ( La.

App. 1 Cir. 3/ 24/ 05), 899 So. 2d 711, 716, writ denied, 05- 1570 ( La. 1/ 27/ 06), 922

So. 2d 544; State v. Henderson, 99- 1945 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 23/ 00), 762 So. 2d 747,

751, writ denied, 00- 2223 ( La. 6/ 15/ 01), 793 So. 2d 1235. Further, unless there is

internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, the

testimony of a single witness, if believed by the factfinder, is sufficient to support a

factual conclusion. State v. Marshall, 04- 3139 ( La. 11/ 29/ 06), 943 So. 2d 362, 369,

cert. denied, 552 U.S. 905, 128 S. Ct. 239, 169 L.Ed.2d 179 ( 2007).

At trial, Duheart testified that during the verbal exchange over the money the

defendant owed him and Williams, Duheart turned around, saw the defendant in the

backseat with a gun pointed at Williams, and saw the defendant shoot Williams. At

that point, Duheart believed that the defendant was going to shoot him next, so he

jumped into the backseat and wrestled with the defendant over the gun. As they

wrestled, the gun fell, and Duheart started " twisting [the defendant' s] neck." When

the vehicle that the defendant previously arrived in pulled up, Duheart released the

defendant.

In identifying the defendant and relaying the incident to Detective Williams,

Duheart referred to the defendant as " Jig," the " street name" by which Duheart knew

the defendant at the time. He subsequently identified the defendant in a

photographic lineup and again in court at trial. During cross- examination, after

being shown hospital admission records, Duheart confirmed that he told hospital

personnel that the defendant pulled out a gun and the gun went off.

7

While at the hospital, Duheart agreed to turn his truck over to the police.

Duheart denied tampering with anything in his truck before turning it over to the

police. Officer Paul Crause and Corporal Kevin Adcock of the crime scene division

of the BRPD processed Duheart' s truck, a Chevrolet Tahoe. A .45 Glock pistol

located in Duheart' s vehicle was photographed before being removed from its

location in " the front door pocket on the passenger side." Officer Crause, who

recovered the gun from Duheart' s truck, testified that in order to fire that particular

gun, it was necessary to " rack the slide," which he further described as bringing the

slide back and bring a bullet out of the magazine and bring it up into the chamber

ready for firing." At the time of its recovery, there were no rounds in the chamber

of the gun, but six live rounds were in the magazine.

Duheart admitted that he owned a gun and confirmed that it was in his truck

on the night in question, as he had instructed Williams to grab it on their way out.

While Duheart was aware that his gun was in his truck at the time of the shooting,

he did not know its exact location until he saw the photograph of the passenger -side

door compartment taken by the police after the shooting. He identified the .45 Glock

pistol photographed by the police as his gun. Duheart testified that Williams did not

have the gun in his hands while the defendant was in the truck and denied that he or

Williams pulled a gun out on the defendant. Williams similarly denied threatening

the defendant or pulling out a gun on him. When asked if he saw Duheart with a

gun, Williams stated, " No," adding, " From my suggestion Denard was trying to fight

off `Jig,' you know."

Duheart and Wells both testified about a conversation that they had after the

shooting wherein Wells told Duheart that he had removed a . 22 caliber gun from

Duheart' s truck because he believed that the gun belonged to Duheart. Duheart

explained to Wells that he actually had a. 45 caliber gun and that the gun he removed

from the vehicle must have been the one the defendant used to shoot the victim.

Duheart specifically testified, " He said he had picked the gun up and went and threw

it somewhere, because he thought it was my gun. I guess he was trying to protect

me or whatever. And when I told him about what happened, he was like, ` Cool.' I

told the detectives what happened."

On the day following the shooting, based on information provided by Duheart,

Officer Ike Vavasseur and Sergeant Dee' Reed of the homicide division of the BRPD

went to Wells' residence to search for the gun that was used to shoot Williams.

Wells signed a form giving the officers consent to search underneath the house.

However, at the time of that search, Wells did not reveal the location of the gun to

the police, nor did the police question him in that regard. The officers left after a

brief search of the exterior of the home, unable to locate the gun, and reported the

negative results of the search to Detective Williams and Detective Chris Polito.

Corporal Adcock later recovered the Lorcin .22 caliber gun from the field off

of Scenic Highway, where Wells indicated that he discarded it. When it was

recovered, it had five live rounds in the magazine and one live round in the chamber.

Jeff Goudeau of the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab, who was qualified at trial as

an expert firearm examiner, testified that the Lorcin pistol had a safety that had to

be deactivated in order to allow it to be fired. The Glock, however, did not have an

external safety. As to a possible accidental discharge of the weapons in evidence,

Goudeau testified, " both of them would indeed require a pull of the trigger to go

off."

At the outset, we note that the defendant' s specific intent to kill the victim

may be properly inferred from his act of pointing the gun at the victim' s head and

firing it. Henderson, 762 So. 2d at 751. Duheart and Williams repeatedly denied

pulling a gun on the defendant or wrestling with him before the gun was fired. The

The trial transcript displays Sergeant Reed' s name as " D. Reed." However, in the written
report that Officer Vavasseur generated relative to the search, he reports Sergeant Reed' s name as
being " Dee Reed."
Z,

jury obviously rejected the version of the facts presented by the defense and

concluded that the shooting was not accidental. We find such a rejection reasonable.

The trier of fact is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any

witness. Coleman, 249 So. 3d at 878. We cannot say that the jury' s determination

was irrational under the facts and circumstances presented to them. See Ordodi, 946

So. 2d at 662. An appellate court errs by substituting its appreciation ofthe evidence

and credibility of witnesses for that of the factfinder and thereby overturning a

verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to, and

rationally rejected by, the trier of fact. See State v. Mire, 14- 2295 ( La. 1/ 27/ 16), 269

So. 3d 698, 703 ( per curiam); State v. Calloway, 07- 2306 ( La. 1/ 21/ 09), 1 So. 3d

4171 418 ( per curiam). After a thorough review of the record, viewing the evidence

in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we are convinced that a rational trier

of fact could find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the

exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, all of the elements of

attempted second degree murder. Thus, this sole assignment of error lacks merit.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

10