State of Louisiana Versus Terrell Nix

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 22-KA-446

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

TERRELL NIX COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 19-2988, DIVISION "I"
HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER, JUDGE PRESIDING

October 31, 2023

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY
CHIEF JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson

AFFIRMED
SMC
JGG
MEJ

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Thomas J. Butler
Matthew R. Clauss

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
TERRELL NIX
Lieu T. Vo Clark

CHEHARDY, C.J.

Defendant, Terrell Nix, was convicted by a unanimous jury of the second-

degree murder of Mr. Rohn Brinker, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. On appeal,

defendant raises a single assignment of error: that the trial court erred in denying

his motion for new trial without conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine

whether the jurors engaged in pre-deliberation discussions. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence and the trial court’s ruling

on defendant’s motion for new trial. Furthermore, defendant is hereby notified that

he has two years from the date that the judgment of conviction and sentence in this

matter becomes final to seek post-conviction relief.

Facts and Procedural History

Defendant, his wife (Nashid Nix), and his mother (Denise Nix) all worked

for Accessibility Group, a home healthcare company that Denise also owns,

providing round-the-clock nursing care to Mr. Brinker, who suffered from mental

disabilities.1 On the night of May 13, 2019, defendant was working his shift that

began at 10:00 p.m. Testimony at trial established that a deputy for the Jefferson

Parish Sheriff’s Office (JPSO) responded to a May 14, 2019, early-morning 9-1-1

call for medical assistance for an individual who allegedly fell in the bathroom and

was not breathing. When JPSO Deputy Ashlee Foret arrived at Mr. Brinker’s

apartment, she attempted CPR. The paramedics subsequently arrived, took over the

CPR, and confirmed that Mr. Brinker had no heartbeat. After trying to revive him

for 30 minutes, EMS received orders to terminate resuscitation efforts.

According to Deputy Foret’s testimony at trial, defendant was the last person

to see Mr. Brinker alive. Deputy Foret testified that defendant indicated that he told

Mr. Brinker to take a shower, but when defendant walked down the hallway, he

1
Evidence in the record indicates that Mr. Brinker had a history of autism, adult attention deficit
disorder, and schizophrenia.

22-KA-446 1

heard a thump, so he turned around to go into the bathroom and saw Mr. Brinker

lying face down in the bathtub.

A death investigator with the JPSO Coroner’s Office, Cody Rodivich,

testified that he later arrived at the apartment and observed suspicious contusions

on Mr. Brinker’s face, neck, chest, and extremities. He also observed blood stains

on the base of the bathtub, as well as on the rear end and outer edges of the tub.

Dr. Dana Troxclair, the chief forensic pathologist at the Jefferson Parish

Coroner’s Office, performed an autopsy and determined that Mr. Brinker died as a

result of strangulation and multiple blunt force trauma injuries, including a broken

rib that punctured a lung while Mr. Brinker was still alive. Dr. Troxclair testified

that the manner of death was homicide. Additional investigation of the incident

confirmed that defendant was on duty with Mr. Brinker at the time of his death.

The State introduced as evidence a Home and Community Based Services

Critical Incident Report (CIR) dated May 13, 2019, which defendant filled out,

stating:

Mr. Brinker was asleep when I did my check. As I checked
him he was wet from wetting the bed so I asked him to get
up so he can take his bath. Mr. Brinker was attempting to
take off his night pants when I was walking to the living
room to finish my duties. Then I heard a thump in the
bathroom. I rushed to see what was the noise and found
him laying in the tub facedown. After I tried to get a
response from him and I got no response I dialed 911 and
Supervisor.

Testimony from Ann Boughton, a registered nurse who works for the Health

Standards Division of the Louisiana Department of Health, testified that when a

CIR is submitted, protocol requires that an accompanying complaint be submitted,

but the agency did not submit such a report. Ms. Boughton found additional

deficiencies after interviewing defendant’s mother, Denise, the owner of the home

health company, most notably that 9-1-1 was not called immediately after

defendant notified Denise that Mr. Brinker had fallen in the tub.

22-KA-446 2

On February 10, 2022, at the conclusion of the four-day trial, the jury

unanimously found defendant guilty of second-degree murder. On February 22,

2022, defendant filed a motion for new trial, arguing that he should be entitled to

have the jury’s verdict vacated because, according to defense counsel, the jury

must have engaged in deliberations before the trial court charged the jury and

released the jurors for formal deliberations. More specifically, defendant’s

attorneys contend that they spoke to alternate juror number 47, who stated that she

was waiting for the jury’s decision because she understood that deliberations

“would not be too long.” Counsel for defendant did not raise any objection on this

basis before the jury returned its verdict.

After hearing arguments from defense counsel and the State, but without

conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion for new trial

from the bench, stating:

An evidentiary hearing is required if well-pleaded
allegations of prejudicial juror misconduct violating
defendant’s constitutional rights is put forth in the
pleadings. … [T]here’s been no testimony that the
defendant has been deprived of his constitutional rights.
There’s been no evidence that there was any outside
influence that was brought to bear upon the jury’s
deliberations and that any precommunication deliberation
-- and I’m specifically relying upon State v. Weaver, 917
So.2d 600, which deals exactly with predeliberation
communications, that they don’t fall within the exception
to Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 606(b). While they
violated my instructions, they do not amount to outside
influence or extraneous prejudicial information.
Therefore, I am going to deny the motion for new trial.

On February 23, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to life

imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence,

remanding him to the Department of Corrections. Defendant now appeals, with his

sole assignment of error arising from the trial court’s ruling denying the motion for

new trial without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

22-KA-446 3

Discussion

Defendant argues that in denying an evidentiary hearing and denying the

motion for new trial, the trial court improperly circumvented his ability to show

that he was denied a fair trial. Defendant concedes in his brief that pre-deliberation

discussions among jurors, although in violation of the trial court’s instructions, do

not amount to “outside influence” or “extraneous information” and thus do not fall

within the exception to the jury shield law set forth in La. C.E. art. 606(B).2

Defendant argues, however, that after a four-day trial, the jury returned a verdict

within an hour, which corroborates alternate juror number 47’s statement that

“deliberation would not be too long.” According to defendant, if jurors were

deliberating, and possibly making up their minds, before receiving all of the

evidence, they did not try the case in a “just and impartial manner” as mandated by

La. C.Cr.P. art. 790.3 Defendant argues that at the very least, the trial court should

have ordered an evidentiary hearing at which alternate juror number 47 could

explain whether the jurors violated the court’s orders.

2
La. C.E. art. 606(B) states:

Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry into the
validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter
or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or to the
effect of anything upon his or any other juror’s mind or emotions as
influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or
concerning his mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror
may testify on the question whether any outside influence was improperly
brought to bear upon any juror, and, in criminal cases only, whether
extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s
attention. Nor may his affidavit or evidence of any statement by him
concerning a matter about which he would be precluded from testifying be
received for these purposes. [Emphasis added.]
3
La. C.Cr.P. art. 790 states:

When selection of jurors and alternate jurors has been completed, and all
issues properly raised under Article 795 have been resolved, the jurors shall
then be sworn together to try the case in a just and impartial manner, each
to the best of his judgment, and to render a verdict according to the law and
the evidence.

22-KA-446 4

In contrast, the State contends that the trial court did not err in denying

defendant an evidentiary hearing because La. C.E. art. 606(B) does not permit such

an inquiry. Although the prohibition in Article 606(B) is not absolute, the

exception allows jurors to testify only “as to whether any outside influence was

improperly brought to bear on their deliberations[.]” Bibbins, 140 So.3d 168. See

also State v. Weaver, 05-169 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/29/05), 917 So.2d 600, 603, writ

denied, 06-695 (La. 12/15/06), 944 So.2d 1277 (explaining that the purpose of La.

C.E. art. 606(B)’s prohibition is to “preserve the confidentiality and finality of jury

verdicts, and the confidentiality of the jurors’ discussions.”). The State contends

that at best, defendant alleges only pre-deliberation discussion of the case by the

jurors; defendant has conceded that there was no outside influence.

The State further argues that the verdict cannot be reversed on appeal

because defendant failed to present his improper-deliberation claim before the jury

rendered its verdict. Counsel for defendant confirmed in both his written motion

and at the hearing that the conversation at issue occurred before the verdict. The

State argues that because defense counsel did not immediately disclose the

comment to the trial court or lodge a contemporaneous objection, and because the

matter was raised for the first time in the motion for new trial, defendant is not

entitled to relief on appeal.

We agree. La. C.Cr.P. art. 841(A) provides, in pertinent part: “An

irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at

the time of occurrence.” To seek appellate review of an alleged trial court error, a

party must make a contemporaneous objection at trial and must state the grounds

for the objection. State v. Williams, 20-46 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/30/20), 308 So.3d

791, 838, writ denied, 21-316 (La. 5/25/21), 316 So.3d 2. Here, defendant’s failure

to alert the trial court of alternate juror number 47’s comment before the jury

rendered its verdict cannot be excused by raising the issue for the first time in a

22-KA-446 5

motion for new trial. See, e.g., State v. Chester, 19-363 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/3/21),

314 So.3d 914, 975, writ denied, 21-350 (La. 6/8/21), 317 So.3d 321 (“we find that

Defendant raising his claim in his motion for new trial does not suffice as a

contemporaneous objection under La. C.Cr.P. art. 841.”). Because defendant failed

to make a contemporaneous objection, defendant is precluded from raising this

issue on appeal.

Even if defendant had objected timely, however, we find the trial court did

not err in denying the motion for new trial or in refusing to conduct an evidentiary

hearing thereon. Defendant evidently requested an evidentiary hearing to obtain

testimony from alternate juror number 47. An evidentiary hearing at which jurors

shall testify is required only when there are well-pleaded allegations of prejudicial

juror misconduct that violates the defendant’s constitutional rights. See State v.

Barber, 97-2749 (La. 4/24/98), 708 So.2d 1054; Bibbins, 140 So.3d at 168.

Otherwise, jurors are shielded from testifying regarding their deliberations under

La. C.E. art. 606(B).4

In Bibbins, 140 So.3d at 168, the defendant alleged juror misconduct before

deliberations in a motion for new trial. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing,

at which a juror testified that other jurors had researched the case on the internet

and television, but this Court found that the trial court properly limited the

testimony with regard to alleged pre-deliberation discussions, which do not amount

to “outside influence” or extraneous information under La. C.E. art. 606(B). See

also State v. Graham, 422 So.2d 123, 134 (La. 1982) (finding the trial court

correctly refused to allow an alternate juror to testify regarding an alleged

prejudicial unauthorized communication with a principal juror, as there was no

outside influence and the allegations of misconduct did not state a cause to believe

4
See footnote 2, supra.

22-KA-446 6

any improper or prejudicial event had occurred); Weaver, 917 So.2d at 613-14

(finding that even if an alternate juror engaged in pre-deliberation discussions with

another juror, “the alternate juror was not an outside source and such discussions

were inter-jury communications only.”); State v. Horne, 28,327 (La. App. 2 Cir.

8/21/96), 679 So.2d 953, 956, writ denied, 96-2345 (La. 2/21/97), 688 So.2d 521

(same).

Here, even if the jurors—including the alternate juror—engaged in pre-

deliberation communications, there are no allegations of outside influence,

extraneous prejudicial information, or objectively verifiable misconduct. Based on

defendant’s single allegation that an alternate juror indicated that deliberations

“would not take too long,” the trial court did not err in refusing to hold an

evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion for new trial.

Finally, we find no merit in defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in

denying the motion for new trial. The denial of a motion for new trial is not subject

to appellate review except for an error of law. La. C.Cr.P. art. 858. See also State v.

Bibbins, 13-875 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/9/14), 140 So.3d 153, 167, writs denied, 14-994

(La. 12/8/14), 153 So.3d 439, and 14-1015 (La. 12/8/14), 153 So.3d 440. The

ruling on a motion for new trial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial

judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State

v. Doyle, 21-257 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/22/21), 335 So.3d 393, 429, writ denied, 22-

167 (La. 4/5/22), 335 So.3d 836. The merits of a motion for new trial must be

viewed with extreme caution in the interest of preserving the finality of judgments.

Bibbins, 140 So.3d at 167, citing State v. Rodriguez, 02-334 (La. App. 5 Cir.

1/14/03), 839 So.2d 106, 133, writ denied, 03-482 (La. 5/30/03), 845 So.2d 1061,

cert. denied, 540 U.S. 972, 124 S.Ct. 444, 157 L.Ed.2d 321 (2003). We find no

error of law, and the record is devoid of any evidence to suggest that the trial court

abused its discretion when ruling on the merits of defendant’s motion for new trial.

22-KA-446 7

ERROR PATENT

We reviewed the record for errors patent pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 920;

State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175

(La. App. 5 Cir. 1990), and found one error.

The transcript reveals that the trial court failed to advise defendant of the

prescriptive period for filing an application for post-conviction relief under La.

C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, which provides that a defendant shall have two years after the

judgment of conviction and sentence has become final to seek post-conviction

relief. Here, after sentencing defendant to life imprisonment without the benefit of

parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, the trial court made no reference to

defendant’s right to seek post-conviction relief. The sentencing minute entry also

does not reflect that the trial court advised defendant of the time period for seeking

post-conviction relief. However, this Court may correct the error by informing the

defendant in its opinion of the two-year prescriptive period for seeking post-

conviction relief. See State v. Becnel, 18-549 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/6/19), 265 So.3d

1017, 1022. Accordingly, we hereby advise defendant that no application for post-

conviction relief, including an application which seeks an out-of-time appeal, shall

be considered if it is filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and

sentence has become final under the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. arts. 914 or 922.

State v. Barnett, 18-254 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/3/19), 267 So.3d 209, 235.

DECREE

Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. The trial court’s

judgment denying defendant’s motion for new trial without conducting an

evidentiary hearing is affirmed. Defendant is notified that any application for post-

conviction relief shall not be considered unless filed within two years after the

judgment of conviction and sentence has become final.

AFFIRMED

22-KA-446 8

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL 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 31, 2023 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

22-KA-446
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER (DISTRICT JUDGE)
MATTHEW R. CLAUSS (APPELLEE) THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE) LIEU T. VO CLARK (APPELLANT)

MAILED
HONORABLE PAUL D. CONNICK, JR.
(APPELLEE)
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
200 DERBIGNY STREET
GRETNA, LA 70053