State of Louisiana Versus Cornell Cambrice

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-KA-153

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

CORNELL CAMBRICE COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20-3897, DIVISION "I"
HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER, JUDGE PRESIDING

December 18, 2024

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY
CHIEF JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
John J. Molaison, Jr., and Scott U. Schlegel

CONVICTION AFFIRMED
SMC
JJM
SUS

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
CORNELL CAMBRICE
Katherine M. Franks

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Thomas J. Butler
Darren A. Allemand
Lindsay L. Truhe

CHEHARDY, C.J.

Appellant, Cornell Cambrice, appeals his conviction for possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon based on the district court’s denial of his request to

charge the jury on the defense of justification. For the following reasons, we

affirm Cambrice’s conviction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant, Cornell Cambrice, was charged by bill of information on

September 21, 2020, with domestic abuse aggravated assault, a violation of La.

R.S. 14:37.7 (count 1), and with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a

violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count 2). Cambrice pled not guilty.

The matter proceeded to trial on September 13, 2022. Prior to the selection

of a jury, the State amended the bill of information regarding the prior conviction

used in count 2.1 On September 15, 2022, a twelve-person jury found Cambrice

guilty as charged as to count 2, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but

were unable to reach a verdict on the domestic aggravated assault charge, resulting

in a mistrial as to count one.

On September 23, 2022, Cambrice filed a motion for new trial and a motion

for appeal, alleging the district court erred in denying his request that the jury be

charged with instructions on self-defense and justification. That same day, the

motion for new trial was denied. After the defense waived sentencing delays, the

district court sentenced Cambrice on count 2 to seventeen years imprisonment at

hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, to run

concurrently with the sentence issued in case number 20-4066. Following

sentencing, the district court granted Cambrice’s notice of appeal. Also On

1
In the original bill of information, relative to count 2, the State alleged that Cambrice violated La.
R.S. 14:95.1 in that he had in his possession a firearm, having previously been convicted of possession
with intent to distribute cocaine, a violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A). On the morning of trial, the State
amended the bill as to count 2, alleging Cambrice was previously convicted of distribution of cocaine, not
with possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

24-KA-153 1

September 23, 2022, the State filed a multiple offender bill of information as to

count 2, and on January 12, 2023, Cambrice stipulated to being a second felony

offender. After vacating his original sentence on count 2, the district court

resentenced Cambrice as a second felony offender to twenty-five years

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

The district court ordered that all aspects of the sentence were to remain the same

from Cambrice’s prior sentencing. The State then dismissed count 1, the domestic

abuse aggravated assault charge.2

The instant appeal followed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The State called the following witnesses to testify at trial.

Lisa Jackson3

Lisa Jackson testified that on July 24, 2020, she was living with her mother

and her husband, Cornell Cambrice, at 1717 Appleby Lane in Harvey, Louisiana.

After leaving work early that day due to inclement weather, she returned home and

received a phone call from Cambrice, asking her to pick him up from work at

Coleman’s Motor Company on Airline Highway. After picking him up, Cambrice

told Jackson that he lost his ID card, so she drove him to a “title place” on Lapalco

Boulevard to get a replacement, during which the couple got into an argument.

According to Jackson, after Cambrice attempted to grab her phone, she pushed him

away, and he snatched the keys from the ignition. Jackson described getting out of

2
A review of the record before us indicates that defense counsel gave an oral notice of appeal,
followed by a written notice of appeal, prior to the State’s filing of the multiple bill, Cambrice’s
stipulation as a second-felony offender, and the imposition of the enhanced sentence. It does not appear
from the record that defense counsel filed a second motion for appeal pertaining to the multiple offender
proceedings. Thus, we find that the multiple bill proceedings are not before this Court on the instant
appeal.
3
Jackson reported a criminal history, including convictions for misdemeanor criminal damage
(1996), theft of goods (2000), credit card theft (2002), monetary instrument abuse (2003), possession of
counterfeit money (2003), accessory to second-degree murder (2003), and aggravated assault with a
firearm (2018). Jackson confirmed that she previously used the name Lisa Edmond in the 1990s and
2000s, and she used the name “Khayda French.” She denied using the name “Cookie Jackson.”

24-KA-153 2

the vehicle and walking away in the rain down Lapalco, when Cambrice proceeded

to follow her and “try[] to hit [her] with the car.” Jackson testified that she refused

Cambrice’s requests for her to get back into the vehicle, and declined his request to

talk. Instead, when she reached the intersection of Manhattan Boulevard and

Lapalco, she called a friend to come pick her up. After picking her up, Jackson’s

friend returned Jackson to her residence, where her mother, who had recently been

discharged from the hospital, was inside. Jackson claimed that she told her mother

what happened, and then called a friend, Herbert Dawson, to come change the lock

on the door of the residence.

Later, Cambrice returned to the residence, and began banging on the door.

When Jackson eventually opened the door, Cambrice entered and began “cutting

up.” Jackson recounted that Cambrice disrespected her mother, and then he cursed

her and called her names. Jackson stated that, in response, she called 911 (which

911 call was played for the jury). When the police arrived, they asked Cambrice to

leave the residence, but he refused, insisting it was his house. Jackson testified that

Cambrice made a threat toward her, and in response, she called him a “murderer,”

prompting Cambrice to “walk up on [her]” while she stood in the kitchen. Jackson

testified that she felt Cambrice was going to attack her as she stood there. When

the police officer attempted to calm Cambrice down, he responded that the police

killed “black people and all that.” Cambrice became belligerent and threatened to

“kill everybody in the house.” At that time, the police arrested Cambrice and

escorted him from the house. According to Jackson, she did not hear from

Cambrice again that night.

Jackson testified that on the following day, July 25, 2020, she received a

phone call from a girlfriend and decided to meet the friend for breakfast. She

indicated that her mother stayed behind at the residence, but later called her at her

friend’s house. Based on the information relayed by her mother, Jackson stated

24-KA-153 3

that she called 911 (which 911 call was also played for the jury). After returning

home, Jackson met the police and Cambrice there. Cambrice left the premises

when he was told to by the police and was instructed not to return to the property.

Despite those instructions, Cambrice later returned to the house while Jackson was

on the patio talking on the phone to his sister, Robin. Jackson testified that she

heard a knock on the door and that when she saw that it was Cambrice, she let him

inside, believing he was there to retrieve his things. Instead, he told her that he

was going “to show [her].” Cambrice then exited the door. Jackson explained that

she followed him to see what he was doing. When Cambrice proceeded to get in

his car, she believed that he was leaving. However, she relayed that Cambrice

drove toward the stop sign, put the car in park, popped the trunk, retrieved a

firearm, shot at her (which was captured on film by a neighbor’s surveillance

system and played for the jury),4 and then drove away. Jackson testified that she

called the police once again and reported that Cambrice had just pulled a firearm

and shot at her (this 911 call was likewise played for the jury).

On cross-examination, Jackson denied threatening Cambrice during the

phone call with his sister. She also denied having the gun in her possession on that

date or “planting” the firearm in Cambrice’s vehicle. Jackson conceded that

Cambrice did not put his hands on her. She confirmed that, in July 2020, both her

and Cambrice’s names were on the lease for the Appleby residence. Further,

Jackson testified that she had never seen Cambrice with a gun in his possession

prior to that day. She denied currently owning a firearm, claiming the last time she

owned one was in 2000. She also denied owning a gun during the time she and

Cambrice lived on Appleby Lane, and asserted that she had never told anyone she

4
Jackson confirmed that her neighbors had surveillance video capturing the shooting. While the
video was played for the jury, Jackson identified herself as the person with her phone near her ear, and
Cambrice in the vehicle, confirming that he was the individual who shot at her. She also identified
Cambrice in open court.

24-KA-153 4

had a gun, and denied showing any of her girlfriends a gun. She further denied

that she was in possession of a gun in July 2020, or that she mentioned in a

telephone conversation that she was going to hurt Cambrice. Jackson dismissed

ever telling anyone that she “had something for [Cambrice],” implying that she

was going to do something to him. Jackson recalled signing a written statement

during her conversation with the police, wherein she indicated that she saw the gun

in Cambrice’s hand.

Iva Goins Green

Green testified that she is Lisa Jackson’s mother and that she lived with

Jackson and Cambrice at 1717 Appleby Lane. Green confirmed that the police

were called to the residence on July 24, 2020, after Jackson returned home upset

following an argument with Cambrice, claiming that he had taken her vehicle.

According to Green, Jackson told Cambrice to keep the vehicle, leave the home,

and to take his belongings. Green explained that Jackson had the lock changed so

that Cambrice could not enter the home. She relayed that when Cambrice returned

to the home, he was “cutting up,” and that the police were called again. She

recalled that the police tried to calm Cambrice down and have him leave the

premises for the night, but that Cambrice refused and began cursing and making

death threats if he was not given a key to the house, causing the police to

eventually arrest and handcuff him. Green testified that the police advised that

Cambrice would be held for at least 72 hours.

According to Green, however, Cambrice returned home the following day,

taking them by surprise. She explained that Cambrice arrived in Jackson’s car,

repeatedly leaving and coming back. Green testified that the last time he returned,

she was home alone when he knocked on the door. She got scared so she called

911. She stated that when Jackson returned home, Jackson noticed that her wallet

was missing, and Green explained that Jackson ran outside to retrieve it from

24-KA-153 5

Cambrice. She then recalled her daughter running inside and into the bathroom

shouting, “Mom, duck, Cornell shooting.” She testified that she heard a gunshot,

but did not see anything. Green claimed that Jackson called 911, but that she

informed Jackson that she had called the police earlier. When the police arrived,

they apprehended Cambrice.

On cross-examination, Green testified that Cambrice had never before been

disrespectful towards her. She also denied ever seeing either Jackson or Cambrice

with a gun or seeing a gun in the residence on Appleby Lane.

Detective Kirk Billiot

Detective Billiot of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (“JPSO”) testified

that he was on patrol the night of July 24, 2020, and was dispatched to 1717

Appleby Lane. He explained that when he arrived, there was another officer on the

scene. He then spoke to Jackson and her mother. Jackson told him that she and

Cambrice were experiencing marital problems and that she had changed the lock

on her door while Cambrice was at work. Detective Billiot testified that Cambrice

then arrived at the residence and began complaining. Although Cambrice initially

agreed to leave and began packing, the situation escalated to Cambrice threatening

to kill everyone in the house when Jackson refused to give him a set of keys to the

new lock, at which time Cambrice was arrested and removed from the home.

Deputy Andrew Scott

Deputy Scott of the JPSO testified that, on July 25, 2020, he responded to a

call about Cambrice trying to retrieve property from the residence on Appleby

Lane. A search was made for Cambrice’s cell phone, but Deputy Scott could not

recall if it was found. Cambrice was asked to leave the premises and was advised

to contact law enforcement before returning to the residence for future property

retrievals. No arrests were made at that time.

24-KA-153 6

Deputy Scott testified that he responded a second time to the residence for

an alleged aggravated assault with a firearm, but Cambrice was not present when

he arrived on the scene. He noted that police canvassed for evidence and were able

to obtain surveillance footage from a dashcam in a nearby vehicle. The footage

was played for the jury.5 Deputy Scott explained that other officers had stopped

and detained Cambrice, and that he responded to where Cambrice was being

detained. After advising Cambrice of his Miranda rights,6 which Cambrice

voluntarily waived, Deputy Scott briefly questioned him. Cambrice admitted to an

argument, but denied firing or possessing a weapon or being scared during the

dispute. When Deputy Scott ran a criminal background check on Cambrice, he

learned that Cambrice was a convicted felon for cocaine distribution, so he arrested

Cambrice for being a felon in possession of a firearm as well as for domestic abuse

aggravated assault.

Deputy Colton O’Connor

Deputy O’Connor, also of the JPSO, testified that he responded twice to

1717 Appleby Lane on July 25, 2020. He explained that the first response was in

regard to “a dispute over a cellphone” in which no arrest was made, and the second

response was relative to a disturbance that was upgraded to shots fired during a

domestic dispute. Deputy O’Connor testified that, while responding to the

residence, he spotted a vehicle matching the description given. He then effected a

5
While the video played for the jury, Deputy Scott explained that he saw Cambrice’s hand pointed
down toward the ground when he turned around. He stated that while he did not observe the gun go off,
he heard the shot. Deputy Scott testified that Cambrice’s hands were in front of him facing the house.
When asked if he heard a gunshot at that time, the deputy replied, “That’s what it looks like to me.”
In the video, a woman is seen outside a residence on the phone, standing next to a silver vehicle.
The vehicle reverses out of the driveway, turns left, and stops at a nearby stop sign. The woman walks
back toward the residence while the silver vehicle remains stopped at the corner. The trunk of the vehicle
opens, and the vehicle moves forward before reversing again, with the trunk still open. The driver can be
seen opening the door, stopping the vehicle, and getting out as the trunk closes. He walks toward the
trunk, which reopens, and retrieves something. The woman remains outside the house. The driver walks
toward the residence, but his back is turned to the camera. The woman turns and screams, “Mom,” and
then goes inside the residence. A loud noise is heard as Cambrice turns toward the vehicle. He places an
object resembling a gun into the trunk, closes it, gets back into the vehicle, and drives away.
6
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

24-KA-153 7

traffic stop of the silver Kia Optima at the intersection of Manhattan and Lapalco

Boulevards, where the driver, later identified as Cambrice, was detained. Deputy

Scott explained that the vehicle was moved to the Popeye’s parking lot, and noted

that no firearm was found in the vehicle.

Detective David Angelica

Detective Angelica of the JPSO testified that he works at the Criminal

Intelligence Center, which, among other things, monitors and records jail calls. He

explained that certain inculpatory calls made by Cambrice were provided, and four

of them were played for the jury. In one call, Cambrice was speaking with a

female, presumably Jackson, and he expressed concern over whether the firearm

had been found. Cambrice also discussed the incident, admitting to the female

things got out of hand, that he acted out of anger, and that he had an anger

problem. When the female caller accused Cambrice of shooting her, he did not

deny the allegations, but promised not to hurt her.

In two other jail calls, Cambrice spoke with “Cynth” about a letter he sent

concerning the firearm, outlining specific tasks he needed her to handle. In a third

call, he accused the recipient of betrayal.

Donna Quintanilla

Quintanilla, a latent print examiner with the JPSO’s crime lab, was accepted

by the district court as an expert in the field of latent print processing and

comparison. She explained the process of latent print examination to the jury. She

also described prints taken from Cambrice at various different times (i.e., prints

contained in the certified conviction packet for Cambrice’s conviction for

distribution of cocaine on November 5, 2003, a fingerprint card from the

Automated Finger Identification System associated with that arrest) and their

comparison to prints she had obtained from Cambrice the previous day. Further,

Quintanilla explained how those prints sufficiently matched for comparison

24-KA-153 8

purposes to identify Cambrice and to establish his status as a felon prohibited from

possessing firearms.7

Nancy Clay

Clay testified that she works at the JPSO’s 911 Call Center and processes all

911 call recordings. Clay explained the process of how a 911 call is recorded and

preserved.

Nigel Cambrice

Nigel Cambrice testified that she is Cambrice’s daughter, but was not at the

1717 Appleby Lane residence on either occasion at issue herein. She stated that

after Cambrice was arrested, he sent her a letter containing a map as to where the

firearm involved in this case could be located. Nigel testified that she took the

letter to Cambrice’s sister, Cynthia, and asked for her help to retrieve the firearm.

She explained that Cambrice had hidden the gun by a ditch under some rocks at a

described location. Nigel stated that she and Cynthia went to that location, that

Cynthia recovered the firearm, and that Cynthia turned over both the firearm and

letter to the police. Nigel denied that she would be able to identify the gun if it

were shown to her.

Detective Kirk Billiot

Detective Billiot was recalled as a witness and testified that he received a

phone call about a firearm being found by Cambrice’s family based on a letter he

sent from jail, which included instructions and a map indicating where to locate the

firearm. Detective Billiot explained that he responded to the Popeye’s at the

corner of Manhattan and Lapalco Boulevards and collected the letter and the gun, a

.357 Magnum revolver. He further explained that when this particular gun is fired,

7
The certified conviction packet reflected Cambrice’s plea to distribution of cocaine as a second
felony offender on November 3, 2003, and a sentence of seventeen years and six months imprisonment
handed down on November 5, 2008. Quintanilla confirmed that this sentence would carry into 2020 and
2021. According to Cambrice’s own testimony, he acknowledged that he served “sixteen years flat” on
that conviction and sentence.

24-KA-153 9

the casings remain inside the gun, which explains why no casings were recovered

by law enforcement at the scene. Photographs of the gun were taken, showing how

it was loaded. Detective Billiot explained that the gun contained four live rounds

and one spent casing, confirming that one of the rounds had been fired. He agreed

that the ballistic evidence indicated one shot had been fired from the gun.

The defense called the following witnesses to testify at trial.

Robin Truly

Truly testified that she is Cambrice’s sister and that she was on the phone

with Jackson on July 25, 2020, the day of the incident at 1717 Appleby Lane.

According to Truly, Cambrice and Jackson were arguing while Cambrice was

gathering his things, and she was trying to calm Jackson down. She advised

Jackson to let Cambrice “get his stuff” and leave. Truly recalled that Jackson

threatened to “get [her] gun,” then placed the phone down, but did not return to the

call. Truly testified that she felt uncertain about how to handle the situation due to

Jackson and Cambrice’s marital problems. She stated that she did not go over to

the house and did not inform law enforcement because she did not want to get

involved.

Cornell Cambrice

Cambrice testified in his own defense. He admitted to being a convicted

felon who was sentenced to seventeen-and-a-half-years imprisonment for

distribution of cocaine, and acknowledged that he “did sixteen years flat” on that

conviction and sentence.8 Cambrice stated that Jackson was his wife and that he

knew about her past involvement with gun violence.

8
In addition, Cambrice testified that he had been convicted for possession of stolen property, and
that he pled guilty to distribution of cocaine within one thousand feet of an elementary school. He also
confirmed his 1990 conviction for cocaine possession and his 2001 conviction in Houston for “assault,
threatening bodily injury.” Cambrice conceded that as a convicted felon, he should not have possessed a
firearm in July 2020.

24-KA-153 10

In describing the events that occurred on July 24, 2020, Cambrice explained

that he and Jackson argued while in the car as she was taking him to get his ID,

because he had lost his wallet and needed his Walmart cards that were in Jackson’s

possession. He claimed that he reached for Jackson’s purse to get the cards, but

she grabbed it and exited the vehicle. It was raining when Jackson began walking.

He testified that he tried to calm her down and attempted to get her to return to the

car. He denied that he tried to run her over or harm her.

According to Cambrice, he became upset and started drinking. He stated

that he returned to the residence on Appleby Lane, which he leased with Jackson,

but she was not there. As he was leaving, he claimed that Jackson returned with a

man he had never met, and that his mother-in-law spoke to the man. He testified

that he left the residence for about twenty minutes and when he returned, the lock

had been changed, which admittedly caused him to become upset. Cambrice

described banging on the door until Jackson let him in, at which point he “acted a

fool.” He testified that the situation escalated and that his alcohol consumption

played a role. He confirmed that he was arrested that night and released from jail

the following morning.

Cambrice testified that he walked home from the jail, entered the residence

through the unlocked garage door, and learned that Jackson was not there. He

claimed that he asked his mother-in-law to call Jackson to find out where his cell

phone was located, but denied that he was “banging and cutting up” when he did

so. He confirmed that he had the keys to the vehicle. He could not recall for

certain whether he left and returned to the residence. Cambrice testified that

“some kind of way [he] ended up” with Jackson, the man who changed the lock the

night before, and the police at the house. Cambrice remembered that he only

wanted to retrieve his cell phone and some clothes before leaving. He told Jackson

that he needed his phone and wanted to get his clothes so they could retrieve her

24-KA-153 11

vehicle. According to Cambrice, Jackson cried and said she did not have the

phone. One of the officers asked Jackson to dial the number, but she said no one

answered. The police instructed Cambrice to leave the residence, and he did. He

denied being told to come back with the police if he wanted his property.

Camrbice testified that when he left his house, he went to his sister’s house,

but when no one answered, he returned home. At that time, the police were gone,

and Jackson let him in while she was holding a gun. He was startled to see her

holding a gun and knew he needed to stay calm. He asked to get his clothes and

leave. He claimed that he went to the back of the house to gather a few items and

noticed the gun on the dining room table. He explained that Jackson was still

upset, telling him she was “going to show [him].” Cambrice testified that as he

was leaving through the garage door, he noticed Jackson smoking in the screened-

in patio at the back of the house and that she was on the phone. Seeing the gun on

the table, he picked it up. He then clarified that when he saw the gun, it was

cocked, so he took it and placed it in the trunk of the car. He explained that

Jackson was unaware he had moved the gun. He returned inside the house to grab

his bag, when he saw Jackson coming from the patio, still on the phone with his

sister, Robin Truly.

Cambrice testified that it was not his intent to hurt anyone when he removed

the gun from the house, but rather, he did so to keep himself from getting hurt. He

claimed that he asked Jackson to let him speak with his sister, but she told him to

“get out of there” and refused to hand him the phone. He decided that since his

sister was home, he had somewhere to go and did not need the phone, so he

jumped in the vehicle and left the residence. He confirmed that in the video,

Jackson stood outside the car. He explained that while he was backing out of the

driveway, Jackson was still screaming and calling him names. He testified that he

then realized he was a convicted felon and had no business with a gun, so he

24-KA-153 12

changed his mind and backed up. He explained that his intention was to remove

the gun from the trunk, bring the gun inside and give it to his mother-in-law, and

then leave. He elaborated that this was why he backed up and grabbed the gun

from the trunk.

Cambrice conceded that the video showed him getting out of the vehicle and

removing the gun from the trunk. He denied that he pointed, raised, or aimed the

gun at Jackson, although she claimed otherwise. He recalled that when Jackson

saw the gun in his hand, she was startled, screamed, and ran inside. As she

screamed and slammed the door, Cambrice claimed he became nervous, which

caused the gun to accidentally go off. In a panic, he jumped in the vehicle and left.

He clarified that when the gun went off, it was not aimed at Jackson, the house, or

the vehicle. He asserted that he kept the gun pointed at the ground the entire time,

including when it went off, and that he never raised it.

Cambrice stated that when he left the residence, he stopped by a canal and

hid the gun under a nearby rock. He claimed that he got back in the vehicle and

was on his way to his sister’s house when the police stopped and arrested him.

Cambrice denied that he spoke with Detective Scott. He admitted writing the letter

from jail to his sister. According to Cambrice, he began thinking about the gun’s

location and recalled that children often visited the pond to search for turtles.

Concerned about the risk of a child finding the gun, he decided to write the letter to

someone he trusted to not turn the gun in, or to get him or Jackson in trouble.

Cambrice denied that his fingerprints were on either the gun or bullets, and

claimed that authorities were making it appear that he had threatened to kill

everyone in the house, which he denied. He acknowledged, “[I]t looks like that,

but that’s not what it was.” Cambrice confirmed the gun was later handed over to

the police.

24-KA-153 13

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

On appeal, Cambrice argues the trial court erred in refusing to charge the

jury on the defense of justification as authorized by La. R.S. 14:18, and in denying

the motion for new trial predicated on the same error.

DISCUSSION

At trial, Cambrice requested a special jury charge for the defense of

justification and self-defense. The defense of justification is generally set out in

La. R.S. 14:18, which states, in pertinent part:

The fact that an offender’s conduct is justifiable,
although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to
prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. This
defense of justification can be claimed under the
following circumstances:

* * *
(7) When the offender’s conduct is in defense of persons
or of property under any circumstances described in
Articles 19 through 22.

Here, Cambrice was charged with a violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1, which

prohibits an individual convicted of certain crimes, including Cambrice’s predicate

crime of distribution of cocaine, from possessing firearms. The Louisiana

Supreme Court in State v. Blache, 480 So.2d 304 (1985), recognized an exception

where self-defense can justify the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,

stating:

[W]hen a felon is in imminent peril of great bodily harm,
or reasonably believes himself or others to be in such
danger, he may take possession of a weapon for a period
no longer than is necessary or apparently necessary to use
it in self-defense, or in defense of others. In such
situation justification is a defense to the charge of felon
in possession of a firearm.

This is not to say that a convicted felon is entitled to own
or maintain possession of a weapon, constructive
possession or otherwise, for protection, or for any other
reason.

24-KA-153 14

Id. at 308; see also State v. Lewis, 98-447 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/28/98), 720 So.2d

1230, 1232.

When justifiable use of force is raised as a defense in a non-homicide case,

the defendant bears the burden of proving such justification by a preponderance of

the evidence. See State v. Barnes, 491 So.2d 42, 47 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1986); State

v. McKinney, 19-380 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/26/19), 289 So.3d 153, 164. Thus, in

order to prove the defense of justification, Cambrice bore the burden of showing

by a preponderance of the evidence that he was in imminent peril or great bodily

harm or reasonably believed himself or others to be in such danger. Even so, he

could only have taken possession of the weapon for a period no longer than was

necessary or apparently necessary to use it in self-defense or in defense of others.

Blache, 480 So.2d at 308.

During the jury charge conference held in the instant matter, defense counsel

informed the district court of a proposed jury instruction on justification under La.

R.S. 14:18. In response, the court advised that justification requires proof of an

imminent threat or force and that the person threatened had no reasonable

alternative but to possess the firearm. The court explained that a defendant must

demonstrate imminent peril of great bodily harm or a reasonable belief of such

danger to himself or others, allowing possession of a weapon only as long as

necessary for self-defense. The court further explained that it was not certain,

given the testimony thus far, that justification was an appropriate charge for the

jury. Because Cambrice had not yet testified, the district court reserved ruling on

the jury instruction at that time.

After Cambrice’s testimony, the district court ruled that it would remove the

justification charge from the jury instructions, due to the lack of evidence of fear or

immediate threat of bodily harm. The district court also issued a written order

24-KA-153 15

denying Cambrice’s request for jury instructions on self-defense and justification,

providing the following reasoning:9

Having heard the testimony of the defendant that: the
defendant discovered a firearm left unattended on a table
inside of the home; the victim existed [sic] to a patio
area, presumably to smoke a cigarette; and that the
defendant then confiscated the firearm and secured it in
the trunk of his vehicle when the crimes at issue herein
occurred, this Court finds that the defendant has not
shown an immediate or imminent threat, and, therefore,
the defendant’s requested jury charges were excluded.
The Court herein relies upon State v. Lee, 782 So.2d
1063 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1/30/2001),10 and distinguishes
the case cited by defendant, State v. Blache, 480 So.2d
304 (La. 1985).

In short, the district court found, based on Cambrice’s own testimony, that

there was neither an “imminent” threat nor a “reasonable belief” of an “imminent”

threat for purposes of applying Blache.

Following trial, defense counsel filed a motion for new trial, and while

counsel argued the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence, the primary

argument of counsel centered on the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on

La. R.S. 14:18, thereby denying Cambrice the opportunity to have the jury

consider justification under that statute for the charge of possession of a firearm by

a convicted felon. Counsel asserted that Cambrice entered the family home and

saw his estranged wife, a convicted felon with a history of violent crimes involving

firearms, holding a gun. Cambrice, who did not own or possess any weapons,

became fearful and gathered his things to leave. When his wife placed the firearm

9
Cambrice sought this Court’s emergency supervisory review challenging the district court’s
order. This Court denied the writ application “[o]n the showing made,” as a transcript had not been
provided and it could not be determined from the application itself whether the district court had abused
its discretion when it denied Cambrice’s request for the jury instruction on justification.
10
In State v. Lee, 00-1253 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/30/01), 782 So.2d 1063, writ denied, 01-831 (La.
2/1/02), 808 So.2d 338, this Court upheld the exclusion of the “Blache defense” and evidence to support a
“Blache defense” because the evidence presented at trial court not have satisfied the jurisprudential
standard. See also State v. Tassin, 11-1144 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/19/13), 129 So.3d 1235, writ denied, 14-
284 (La. 0/19/14), 148 So.3d 950 (no error in excluding self-defense instruction because the evidence
“does not permit a reasonable inference that defendant acted in self-defense”); State v. Mayes, 14-683
(La. App. 3 Cir. 12/23/14), 154 So.3d 1257, writ denied, 15-178 (La. 11/16/15), 184 So.3d 24 (no error in
failure to give instruction because defendant was not in “imminent peril” as per Blache).

24-KA-153 16

on a table, Cambrice, believing he was in danger, took the gun and placed it in the

trunk of a car. Counsel argued that it was the jury’s right—not the court’s—to

decide if these circumstances met the statutory criteria for justification, and the

jury should have been given the instruction. Prior to sentencing that same date, the

trial judge denied defense counsel’s motion for new trial.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 802 mandates that the district

court instruct the jury on the law applicable to each case. The district court is

required to charge the jury on the law applicable to any theory of defense, when

properly requested, which the jurors could reasonably infer from the evidence.

State v. Ball, 12-710 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/24/13), 131 So.3d 896, 900, writ denied

sub nom. State ex rel. Ball v. State, 13-1329 (La. 11/8/13), 125 So.3d 450, and writ

denied, 13-1139 (La. 11/15/13), 125 So.3d 1103. La. C.Cr.P. art. 807 further

mandates that a requested special charge shall be given by the court if it does not

require qualification, limitation, or explanation, and if it is wholly pertinent and

correct. It need not be given if it is included in the general charge or in another

special charge to be given. State v. Batiste, 06-824 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/13/07), 956

So.2d 626, 636, writ denied sub nom. State ex rel. Batiste v. State, 07-892 (La.

1/25/08), 973 So.2d 751.

As a general matter, a district court has the duty to instruct the jurors as to

“every phase of the case supported by the evidence whether or not accepted by him

as true” and that duty extends to “any theory ... which a jury could reasonably infer

from the evidence.” State v. Joseph, 23-446 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/24/24), 386 So.3d

688, 693 (citing State v. Neal, 00-674 (La. 6/29/01), 796 So.2d 649, 659, cert

denied, 535 U.S. 940, 122 S.Ct. 1323, 152 L.Ed.2d 231 (2002)). This evidence

presented at trial, however, must support a requested written charge for the jury.

Id. A district court’s failure to give a requested jury instruction constitutes

reversible error only when there is a miscarriage of justice, prejudice to the

24-KA-153 17

substantial rights of the accused, or a substantial violation of a constitutional or

statutory right. Id.

The decision on a motion for new trial rests within the discretion of the

district court. State v. Williams, 18-112 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/7/18), 259 So.3d 563,

578, writ denied, 18-2038 (La. 4/22/19), 268 So.3d 295. The ruling will not be

disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. State v.

Barrosse, 23-393 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/17/24), 386 So.3d 333, 337.

Based on our appellate review of the record, we find the district court did not

err in its determination that the evidence presented at trial does not support a

theory of self-defense and, thus, Cambrice was not entitled to a self-defense jury

instruction. Specifically, Jackson testified that on July 25, 2020, Cambrice shot at

her outside of their residence. After an argument with Cambrice, he left the house,

got into his vehicle, reversed it toward the stop sign, and parked. He then opened

the trunk, retrieved a gun, pointed it at Jackson, and fired a shot towards her.

Jackson recalled that she fled inside, feeling scared. She denied having ever seen

Cambrice with a gun before the incident and denied owning a firearm herself.

Jackson’s mother, Green, corroborated the shooting, stating that her daughter ran

inside, saying, “Mom, duck, Cornell is shooting.” Surveillance footage from a

nearby vehicle captured Cambrice’s actions leading up to the shooting. Later, a

family member found the .357 Magnum revolver based on instructions from a

letter Cambrice sent from jail. The police collected the gun, which contained one

spent casing and four live rounds, confirming that a shot had been fired.

Even accepting Cambrice’s testimony as true, the proposed jury instruction

of justification does not apply to the instant case as there is no indication that he

was in imminent peril of great bodily harm or that he reasonably believed he was

in such danger that he needed to take possession of a weapon for self-defense.

The record shows that Camrbice’s sister testified that she was on the phone with

24-KA-153 18

Jackson during an argument, and Jackson told her, “I’m going to get my gun,”

before leaving the call. Cambrice admitted that he saw the gun on the dining room

table while Jackson was outside on the porch, talking on the phone. He stated that

he removed the gun from the house, placed it in the trunk of his vehicle, and then

intended to return it to his mother-in-law. Cambrice claimed he did not intend to

hurt anyone and that he removed the gun solely to protect himself from getting

hurt. He also admitted possessing the gun after removing it from the residence and

then hiding it under a rock by the canal. He explained that he hid the gun under a

rock because he feared the police would arrive and mistakenly shoot him for

having it. He wanted to avoid getting arrested and believed that hiding the gun

would prevent further complications for both him and Jackson.

There is simply no evidence in the record that would support a jury charge

on justification. Consequently, there was no abuse of discretion by the district

court in denying Cambrice’s request for a jury charge on the defense of

justification. We find there was no miscarriage of justice, no prejudice to the

substantial rights of Cambrice, and no occurrence of a substantial violation of a

constitutional or statutory right. For the same reasons, we find no abuse of

discretion by the district court in denying Cambrice’s motion for new trial.

ERROR PATENT DISCUSSION

The record was reviewed for error 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). We found no errors requiring corrective action.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED

24-KA-153 19

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
DECEMBER 18, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-KA-153
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER (DISTRICT JUDGE)
KATHERINE M. FRANKS (APPELLANT) DARREN A. ALLEMAND (APPELLEE) JULIET L. CLARK (APPELLEE)
THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE)

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