State of Louisiana Versus Charles E Bates

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-KA-14

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES E BATES COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 23-3504, DIVISION "E"
HONORABLE FRANK A. BRINDISI, JUDGE PRESIDING

August 22, 2024

SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson,
Scott U. Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel

AFFIRMED
SUS
MEJ
TSM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Juliet L. Clark
Thomas J. Butler

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
CHARLES E. BATES
Holli A. Herrle-Castillo

SCHLEGEL, J.

Defendant, Charles E. Bates, appeals his conviction and sentence for

illegal use of a weapon in violation of La. R.S. 14:94. For the following

reasons, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Procedural Background

On July 25, 2023, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of

information charging that on or about June 15, 2023, defendant illegally

discharged a firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:94(A)(B). The bill provided

that defendant “violated La. R.S. 14:94(A)(B) in that he did intentionally, or

in a criminally negligent manner, discharge a firearm under circumstances

where it was foreseeable that death or great bodily harm might result to a

human being.” Defendant pled not guilty at his arraignment on August 14,

2023.

The case proceeded to a jury trial on November 27, 2023. On that

day, the six-person jury found defendant guilty as charged by a unanimous

verdict. Defense counsel waived sentencing delays, and defendant was

sentenced to two years of home incarceration. Defense counsel also filed a

motion for appeal on that day. The trial court granted the motion to appeal

on November 28, 2023.

Facts

The State called two witnesses at the trial: Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s

Office Deputies Eric Glorioso and Anthony Lisgo. The State also

introduced as exhibits: portions of the 911 call; portions of Dep. Glorioso’s

body camera video; a gun, a projectile, a shell casing, and bullets that were

inside the gun found at the scene; and photographs.

On June 15, 2023, the Jefferson Parish emergency operator received a

911 call from an apartment complex on Manhattan Blvd., which reported

that a maintenance worker had heard an argument and shots coming from

24-KA-14 1

one of the apartments. When asked how the maintenance worker knew this,

the caller replied that the maintenance worker said he had heard the shots.

The caller said that the maintenance worker did not specify how many shots

he heard, but that it was the boyfriend and there was only a woman on the

lease.

Dep. Glorioso, a nine-year employee of the JPSO, testified that he was

dispatched in response to a 911 call from a maintenance worker at an

apartment complex on Manhattan Blvd. who had heard an argument and

shots fired from an apartment. When he arrived at the complex, Dep.

Glorioso responded to the front office to gather more information about what

had occurred. After learning where the shots had come from, the deputy

proceeded towards the apartment. When he arrived, other deputies were

already on scene speaking with defendant, who was coming down the stairs,

wearing a white t-shirt “covered in blood” and acting aggressively. There

was also a woman standing at the top of the stairwell, who was later

identified as a friend of defendant, who was present during the incident.

Dep. Glorioso testified that they then handcuffed defendant, advised him of

his Miranda rights, and started talking with defendant about what was going

on. According to Dep. Glorioso, all they knew at this point was that there

was an argument at the apartment complex, that glass had been broken, and

that a shot had been fired. The interaction was recorded on his body camera

video, which was introduced into evidence and published in part to the jury.

Defendant explained on the body camera video that he and his

girlfriend, who lived together, had been throwing things at each other during

the argument, that he broke a window, but that there was nothing physical.

His girlfriend left before the police arrived. He stated that he then started to

pack up his things, and was going to leave with his dog. When defendant

was asked whether there were guns in the apartment, he said that there were

24-KA-14 2

and told the officers that they could find it on the second sofa by the door.

And when defendant was asked about whether any of the guns were fired

accidentally, he said no, but then backtracked and said that he was not sure

and said he didn’t even remember putting a gun in his hands. But after one

of the deputies confronted him about the fact that they also found a projectile

and a casing on the landing, defendant said that he did not hear anything go

off, and that “none of us” shot the gun. The video shows that an officer

asked defendant “who grabbed the gun?” Defendant responded: “Who

grabbed it? It’s mine. So I’m the one that grabbed it.”

He reiterated on the video:

What I explained to you earlier - I don’t know what – how the
gun went off. All I remember was – is when I picked up everything to
walk out that was when we were still throwing stuff at each other.
But not that I put my hand on the trigger . . .

Dep. Anthony Lisgo also responded to the scene and testified that as

he approached the stairwell at the apartment complex, he encountered

defendant, who was wearing a white t-shirt covered in blood. Dep. Lisgo

also saw a green suitcase on the upstairs landing and a dog running around.

Dep. Lisgo asked defendant, “Hey man, what happened?” But defendant

just kept saying, “The glass upstairs, the glass.”

Dep. Lisgo was able to determine that defendant had a cut on his

forearm and had a lot of blood on him. Dep. Lisgo testified that he went

upstairs and walked through the apartment to make sure no one else was

injured. He did not observe the gun on this walk through, but saw that there

was blood on the walls, holes in doors, and the apartment was in complete

disarray. He said that another deputy was coming in behind him and noticed

that a window in the landing was broken. They eventually found a projectile

lodged in the floor of the balcony area and a shell casing in that same area.

Dep. Lisgo testified that he went back downstairs and said to

defendant “Listen, man, we know there was a shooting. If there’s a gun,
24-KA-14 3

where would it be at?” Defendant told him it was on the second couch next

to the door. So Dep. Lisgo went back upstairs to look for the gun. When he

did not see a gun on the couch, he put his hand into the crease of the couch

that defendant had identified and pulled out a loaded semi-automatic

handgun. Because people were still on the scene, Dep. Lisgo secured the

gun and made it safe.

Dep. Lisgo identified the spent shell casing, the projectile, the firearm

with magazine, and the bullets that had been in the firearm. He also

identified the live rounds that were removed from the magazine of the

firearm. Dep. Lisgo also identified photographs taken at the scene. He

testified that he saw what appeared to be blood on the gun.

Neither deputy spoke to either of the females at the scene. Nor did

either woman testify at the trial. Defendant’s roommate briefly appears at

the top of the stairs on the body camera video.

Law and Analysis

In his sole assignment of error, defendant asserts that the evidence

was insufficient to uphold the conviction, and specifically that the State

failed to prove that he was the one who fired the gun. He avers that there

was no eyewitness testimony presented at trial and that no one observed him

with the gun or witnessed him discharge the gun. Defendant argues that

although a projectile, casing, and gun were retrieved from the apartment, this

circumstantial evidence did not establish that he was the person who fired

the gun. Defendant argues that because the evidence was wholly

circumstantial, the State was required to exclude every reasonable

hypothesis of innocence, which it failed to do. He argues that his girlfriend

or roommate could have easily shot the weapon, but neither gave a statement

or testified at trial. Defendant avers that because the State presented

24-KA-14 4

“essentially no evidence” that he was the shooter, the conviction must be

reversed.

The State argues that defendant’s statements taken together and the

evidence recovered at the scene refute the asserted “unreasonable hypothesis

of innocence” theory that one of the women could have been responsible for

discharging the gun.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must

determine that the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, or a mixture of

both, 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 have

been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,

99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Mickel, 09-953 (La. App. 5

Cir. 5/11/10), 41 So.3d 532, 534, writ denied, 10-1357 (La. 1/7/11), 52

So.3d 885. A review of the record for sufficiency of the evidence does not

require the court to ask whether it believes that the evidence at the trial

established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Gatson, 21-156, 21-

157 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/29/21), 334 So.3d 1021, 1034, citing State v. Jones,

08-20 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/15/08), 985 So.2d 234, 240. Rather, the reviewing

court is required to consider the whole record and determine whether any

rational trier of fact would have found the State proved the essential

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The requirement that

the evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution

requires the reviewing court to defer to “the actual trier of fact’s rational

credibility calls, evidence weighing and inference drawing.” Id., citing State

v. Caffrey, 08-717 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/12/09), 15 So.3d 198, 202, writ denied,

09-1305 (La. 2/5/10), 27 So.3d 297.

Evidence may be either direct or circumstantial. Circumstantial

evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which

24-KA-14 5

the existence of the main fact can be inferred according to reason and

common experience. Id. When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the

commission of an offense, La. R.S. 15:438 mandates that “[A]ssuming every

fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must

exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” This is not a separate

test from the Jackson standard, but rather provides a helpful basis for

determining the existence of reasonable doubt. State v. Wooten, 99-181 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 6/1/99), 738 So.2d 672, 675, writ denied, 99-2057 (La. 1/14/00),

753 So.2d 208.

The reviewing court is not required to determine whether another

possible hypothesis of innocence suggested by the defendant offers an

exculpatory explanation of events. State v. Baham, 14-653 (La. App. 5 Cir.

3/11/15), 169 So.3d 558, 566, writ denied, 15-40 (La. 3/24/16), 190 So.3d

1189. Rather, the reviewing court must determine whether the possible

alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could

not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Where there is conflicting testimony as to factual matters, the question

of the credibility of the witnesses is within the sound discretion of the trier

of fact, who may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any

witness. State v. Rowan, 97-21 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/29/97), 694 So.2d 1052,

1056. Reviewing courts will not re-weigh the credibility of witnesses on

appeal. Id., citing State v. Bovie, 95-474 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/28/95), 665

So.2d 558, 560-61. Ultimately, all evidence, both direct and circumstantial,

must be sufficient to support the conclusion that the defendant is guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt. Wooten, 738 So.2d at 675.

La. R.S. 14:94(A) defines the offense of illegal use of a weapon in

pertinent part as “the intentional or criminally negligent discharging of any

firearm, . . . where it is foreseeable that it may result in death or great bodily

24-KA-14 6

harm to a human being.” Defendant does not dispute that the evidence

presented at trial was constitutionally sufficient to establish that the firearm

was negligently discharged such that it was foreseeable that it may result in

death or great bodily harm to a human being as required by La. R.S.

14:94(A). Instead, defendant contends that the hypothesis that the gun was

fired by either defendant’s girlfriend or roommate is sufficiently reasonable

that no rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he

was the offender.

We find that a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence

presented was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of illegal use of a

weapon in violation of La. R.S. 14:94.

The deputies testified that defendant’s shirt was covered in blood

when they arrived, which was verified by the body camera video. Defendant

admitted that he was fighting with his girlfriend, that they were throwing

things around, and that he had punched a glass mirror, which caused him to

cut himself. The deputies found physical evidence at the scene that an

argument had occurred in the apartment. Further, the deputies found a

projectile, spent casing, and damaged floor from a bullet in the balcony area.

And the deputies found a gun with blood on it, stuffed in a sofa, exactly

where defendant told them they would find it. Defendant even admitted that

it was his gun but continued to deny that the gun had been fired during the

argument by himself or anyone else, intentionally or accidentally.

Although defendant stated on the video camera that he did not

remember shooting a gun and that neither he nor his girlfriend shot a gun,

when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and considering

all of the direct and circumstantial evidence adduced, the evidence was

sufficient to convince a rational tried of fact that all of the elements of the

crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

24-KA-14 7

Errors Patent Discussion

The Court reviewed the record for errors patent according 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). The review reveals no

errors patent in this case.

Decree

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED

24-KA-14 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
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL 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
AUGUST 22, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-KA-14
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE FRANK A. BRINDISI (DISTRICT JUDGE)
JULIET L. CLARK (APPELLEE) THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE) HOLLI A. HERRLE-CASTILLO
(APPELLANT)

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