State of Louisiana in the Interest of J.F.

STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST NO. 24-KA-386
OF J.F.
FIFTH CIRCUIT

COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON PARISH JUVENILE COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 23-JU-141, DIVISION "A"
HONORABLE JENNIFER G. WOMBLE, JUDGE PRESIDING

October 18, 2024

MARC E. JOHNSON
JUDGE

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

AFFIRMED
MEJ
SUS
TSM

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

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
J.F.
Katherine M. Franks

JOHNSON, J.

Juvenile, J.F.1, seeks review of the Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court’s

adjudications finding he committed attempted second degree murder (count

three) and illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile (count four), and the

dispositions committing him to three years in secure care on count three and

six months on count four, with both dispositions to run concurrently. For the

following reasons, the juvenile court’s adjudications and dispositions are

affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 5, 2024, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a

petition in juvenile court alleging that the juvenile, J.F., illegally used

weapons or dangerous instrumentalities in violation of La. R.S. 14:94 (count

one), committed simple criminal damage to property in violation of La. R.S.

14:56 (count two), committed attempted second degree murder in violation of

La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:30.1 (count three), and illegally possessed a

handgun as a juvenile in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.8 (count four). J.F.

denied the allegations of the petition on January 8, 2024.

At the May 2024 adjudication hearing, the victim, D.S., testified that

on the afternoon of December 4, 2023, he saw his cousin, G.H., get into a

fight with J.F. at Strehle Community School. D.S. started attending the

school the previous month. He did not know J.F., but they had mutual friends

and he knew that J.F. lived in Kennedy Heights.

After school, at approximately 3:10 p.m., D.S. began walking on the

sidewalk of Ursula Drive in Avondale with his two cousins, K. and P. D.S.

1
In order to maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings, as required by La. Ch.C. art. 412, and
pursuant to Uniform Rules–Courts of Appeal, Rules 5-1 and 5-2, the initials of the juvenile (and
any witnesses under the age of majority) will be used. See State in Int. of T.L., 17-579 (La. App. 5
Cir. 2/21/18), 240 So.3d 310, 315 n.1; State in the Int. of C.L., 15-593 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/23/15),
184 So.3d 187, 188 n.1.

24-KA-386 1

lived on Ursula Drive with his aunt and uncle, G.H., and three other cousins.

D.S. further testified that he observed a maroon Volkswagen stop in front of

his house at 120 Ursula before pulling up alongside of him. He also recalled

that there were three people inside that vehicle—the driver, a front seat

passenger, and a rear seat passenger. He could not identify the driver or the

front seat passenger.

J.F. then exited the vehicle from the driver’s side rear seat, pulled out a

gun, called him a “b*tch,” and started shooting at him. D.S. recalled that he

froze, then started running. D.S. was struck by a bullet that went straight

through his left wrist. D.S. ran to the right side and then the left side, and then

ran to his home on Ursula and showed his wound to his aunt. Someone called

9-1-1, and the police and EMS came to the scene. EMS took D.S. to

Children’s Hospital where Detective Jamal Cook from Jefferson Parish

Sheriff’s Office (“JPSO”) met with him to investigate the incident.

Detective Cook later showed D.S. a single photograph of J.F., whom

D.S. positively identified as the shooter. D.S. testified that when the juvenile

exited the vehicle from the rear seat, the juvenile was wearing a green face

mask, “like a zip-up.” D.S. further testified that he did not have any issues

with the juvenile before December 4th, but he (D.S.) may have been in

another fight with someone else prior to that date.

Detective Cook explained that he showed a single photograph to D.S.

and not a six-person lineup because D.S. went to school with the suspect.

Detective Cook testified that D.S. wrote on the photograph that he was one

hundred percent sure of his identification.

JPSO Detective Daryl Salaun, a school resource officer at Strehle,

testified that on December 4, 2023, the principal came to his office and told

him that there was a fight between J.F and G.H. Detective Salaun provided

24-KA-386 2

commentary on the surveillance video of the fight at school, which was

entered into evidence, as it played during the adjudication. The video showed

the fight occurred at 1:38 p.m. The fight started inside of a classroom and

moved outside of the classroom, after which a coach separated J.F. and G.H.

Detective Salaun thereafter escorted J.F. to his office and observed that he

sustained a bloody nose from the fight.

Detective Salaun identified a surveillance video that showed the

students picking up their cell phones at the end of the day. He also identified

J.F. in a video of the school’s vestibule by the bus pick-up lanes, and pointed

out that he was wearing a green hoodie while walking out of the school. He

further identified still photographs of J.F. in a green hoodie from the

vestibule video. Detective Salaun testified that another surveillance video

showed the juvenile leaving school, running toward Margie Street at 3:13

p.m., and taking a left on Margie. The video also showed a maroon vehicle

drive up from Millie Drive and take a right-hand turn on Margie at 3:14 p.m.2

He did not recognize that vehicle. Detective Salaun testified that he was

outside at the time of the recording and observed what the video depicted.

While he was outside, Detective Salaun observed that J.F. was

irritated, shaking his leg, and upset, probably because of the fight he had just

gotten into. He had also previously observed J.F. on his cell phone inside the

building. Detective Salaun testified that after J.F. left the school, he

subsequently heard gunshots. He then went to the scene, met the Third

District deputies, and saw D.S., who had been shot in his hand. He further

testified that D.S. stated “Johnny Boy” had shot him. Detective Salaun

2
Detective Salaun also explained a map that was entered into evidence that showed Strehle School
is located at the end of Margie Drive where it intersects Millie Drive, and Ursula Drive is the next
street over, running parallel to Millie Drive.

24-KA-386 3

explained J.F. was called “Johnny Boy” at school. Before the shooting, the

detective saw D.S. walking home with K. and P.

JPSO Detective Jeffery Jobin also responded to the scene on Ursula

Drive on December 4, 2023. He testified that he assessed the scene and found

five shell casings in the middle of the roadway. He explained that there were

three shell casings on one side of the street and two shell casings on the other

side. Detective Jobin asserted that, in his experience, the fact that there were

shell casings on both sides of the street indicated that the shooter moved

while he was shooting.

The juvenile court accepted Joel O’Lear, a forensic scientist in the

JPSO crime lab, as an expert in the field of firearms and toolmark

examination. He testified that he received five, 9 mm cartridge casings to

examine in relation to the instant case, and determined that they were all fired

from the same firearm. Mr. O’Lear stated that he also received a projectile

(bullet), and he determined it to be most consistent with .38 caliber class

ammunition, which includes a 9 mm. Mr. O’Lear concluded that the class of

firearms the projectile was fired from matched the class of firearms that

produced the five spent shell casings.

At the end of the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated

J.F. delinquent of attempted second degree murder (count three) and illegal

possession of a handgun by a juvenile (count four). The court found that the

juvenile was not delinquent on counts one and two. In June 2024, a

disposition hearing was held, and the court committed J.F. to three years in

secure care on count three and six months on count four, with both

dispositions to run concurrently. A few days later, the court granted his

timely motion for appeal.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

24-KA-386 4

The evidence was insufficient to establish the identity of J.F. as the
perpetrator of the offenses.

The juvenile’s appellate counsel argues that the evidence was

insufficient to support his adjudication. She contends that although D.S.

named J.F. as the shooter, his identification was without evidentiary basis

upon which the trier of fact could judge its validity. She further contends that

the shooter was masked, and D.S. did not mention any distinguishing features

to support his belief that J.F. shot at him. Counsel argues that the judge

committed manifest error when she substituted her own opinion, which

directly contradicted the testimony of D.S., and concluded that D.S. misspoke

when he twice described the zippered mask that the shooter wore. Counsel

also noted that the judge said, without support, that the pullover sweatshirt

J.F. wore was pulled up over his face.

Additionally, counsel avers that the court failed to recognize that there

was no motive for the shooting. D.S.’s cousin was involved in a fight with

J.F., and D.S. was not involved. Counsel states that D.S. only knew J.F.

peripherally and testified that he had never even spoken to J.F. Counsel also

avers that the court did not consider that, based on D.S.’s admission to being

involved in another fight that took place earlier, another student had a motive

to shoot at D.S.

The State responds that this court should affirm the delinquency

adjudication and disposition. It asserts D.S. said that the perpetrator was

wearing a garment “like” a zippered facemask, not an actual facemask; J.F.

does not deny on appeal that he was wearing a green pullover hoodie; and the

trial court’s factual findings were specifically based on its observations of

“the victim’s in-court demeanor and gestures,” which the appellate court

should afford great deference to upon review.

24-KA-386 5

LAW AND DISCUSSION

In evaluating the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, an

appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99

S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the

State’s burden of proof is the same as in a criminal proceeding against an adult, to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense alleged in the

petition. State ex rel. D.W., 09-855 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/14/10), 47 So.3d 1048, 1053.

In addition, La. Const. art. V, § 10(B) mandates that an appellate
court review both law and facts when reviewing juvenile
adjudications. ‘While delinquency proceedings may in many ways
implicate criminal proceedings, sometimes even mimicking them, they
are nonetheless civil in nature.’ State in the Interest of D.R., 10-0405,
p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/13/10), 50 So.3d 927, 930. Therefore, as in the
review of civil cases, a factual finding made by a trial court in a
juvenile adjudication may not be disturbed by an appellate court unless
the record evidence as a whole does not furnish a basis for it, or it is
clearly wrong. State in Interest of K.G., 11-1559, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir.
3/21/12), 88 So.3d 1205, 1207, citing State in the Interest of Batiste,
367 So.2d 784 (La. 1979); State in the Interest of S.S., 557 So.2d 407
(La. App. 4th Cir. 1990); State ex rel. E.D.C., 39,892 (La. App. 2 Cir.
5/11/05), 903 So.2d 571.

State ex rel. S.C., 21-468 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/29/21), 332 So.3d 169,

174. In juvenile proceedings, the scope of review on appeal extends to both

law and facts. See La. Const. art. V, § 10(B); State in Int. of H.D., 23-84 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 6/28/23), 368 So.3d 266, 271, writ denied, 23-1026 (La.

12/19/23), 375 So.3d 415. The “clearly wrong-manifest error” standard of

review should be used to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to

satisfy the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; State ex rel.

S.C., supra.

24-KA-386 6

In addition to proving the statutory elements of the
charged offense, the State is required to prove the identity of the
perpetrator. State v. Searls, 04-790 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/25/05),
895 So.2d 40, 43. The State is required to negate any reasonable
probability of misidentification in order to carry its burden of
proof when the key issue is identification. Id. Positive
identification by one witness is sufficient to support a
conviction. State v. Benoit, 07-35 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/29/07), 960
So.2d 279, 282.

State ex rel. S. L., 11-883 (La. App. 5 Cir. 04/24/12), 94 So.3d 822, 831.

The rule as to circumstantial evidence is that “assuming every fact to

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

exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” La. R.S. 15:438. 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. Ultimately, all evidence, both direct and

circumstantial, must be sufficient to support the conclusion that the defendant

is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

In the instant case, the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for

attempted second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:27, and La. R.S.

14:30.1 (count three) and illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile, in

violation of La. R.S. 14:95.8 (count four). On appeal, the juvenile argues that

the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the

offenses.

Encompassed within proving the elements of an offense is the

necessity of proving the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator. Where

the key issue is identification, the State is required to negate any reasonable

probability of misidentification in order to carry its burden of proof. State v.

Pike, 18-538 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/8/19), 273 So.3d 488, 494, writ denied, 19-

927 (La. 2/10/20), 292 So.3d 60.

24-KA-386 7

To prove the identity of J.F. as the perpetrator, the State introduced the

following evidence: D.S. testified that he and J.F. went to the same school

starting in November 2023; he saw J.F. around school and they had mutual

friends; he witnessed his cousin and J.F. fight at school; he left school at

approximately 3:10 p.m.; and as he was walking home, a maroon vehicle

pulled up, and J.F. exited the vehicle, pulled out a gun, and shot him in the

wrist. Also, D.S. testified that when the juvenile exited the vehicle from the

rear seat, the juvenile was wearing a green face mask, “like a zip-up.” Both

D.S. and Detective Cook testified that D.S. positively identified J.F. as the

shooter from a photograph, and D.S. wrote that he was one hundred percent

sure of his identification.

Detective Salaun testified that he had a good relationship with J.F.

After the December 4, 2023 fight, J.F. sat in the detective’s office for an hour

or two. Detective Salaun described surveillance videos that showed the

students picking up their cell phones at the end of the day and J.F. wearing a

green hoodie, walking out of the school, then running toward and making a

left on Margie Drive at 3:13 p.m. The video also showed a maroon vehicle

drive up Millie Drive and take a right-hand turn on Margie Drive at 3:14 p.m.

Detective Salaun also heard the gun shots and went to the scene of the

crime, where D.S. reported that “Johnny Boy” had shot him. Detective

Salaun asserted that the juvenile was called “Johnny Boy” at school.

J.F.’s appellate counsel argues that the evidence was insufficient to

prove that J.F. was the perpetrator, considering that the perpetrator was

masked and that D.S. pointed to no distinguishing features for his

identification. Counsel also asserts that the judge erred by finding that D.S.

misspoke when he said that the green hoodie was zipped up and that J.F.’s

sweatshirt was actually pulled up over his face.

24-KA-386 8

The transcript reflects the following:

Q. Okay. Do you remember what J.F. was wearing when
he got out of the car?
A. Yeah.
Q. And what was he wearing?
A. I don’t remember the color of the jacket, but he was
wearing a green mask, like a green mask. It was like a face
mask like one you would zip up. It was one of those.
***
THE WITNESS:
It was like one of them masks you like put on your head
and you zip up like right here (indicating). It was like a zip-up.
It was a green mask.

The record also reflects that when the trial judge adjudicated the

juvenile delinquent, she stated in pertinent part:

I do believe that based on the situation that day with the
fight at school, with the video of the defendant running out of
the school, the car showing up, with the resource officer hearing
the shots, it all happened just so quickly that it proved the case
very clearly to me.

While the victim D.S. indicated that there was a mask, I
believe that he misspoke. At the time that he was doing it, he
was using his hands to show how the hoodie came up. He was
nervous. I think that he said the wrong wording. He did say a
zipper. It was clear in the picture that there was no zipper, but a
lot of those have zippers. And I believe that he was very clear in
who he described and that he saw the defendant that day do
this.

The judge thought that D.S. misspoke when he said that the green

mask had a zipper after considering his nervousness and interpreting his hand

gestures during his testimony.

In assessing the reliability of eyewitness identifications when
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, Louisiana courts
apply the five factors set forth by the United States Supreme
Court in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53
L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), which are as follows: (1) the opportunity
of the witness to view the perpetrator at the time of the crime;
(2) the witness's degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the
witness's prior description of the perpetrator; (4) the level of
certainty demonstrated by the witness; and (5) the length of
time between the crime and the identification.

Pike, 273 So.3d at 495.

24-KA-386 9

Although appellate review of juvenile cases extends to law and fact,

the juvenile judge observes the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses and is

in a far better position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence. State

in Int. of D.S., 11-416 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/28/11), 83 So.3d 1131, 1136. Thus,

the appeals court should afford great deference to the judge’s findings of fact

and to the judge’s determination of witness credibility and weight to be given

their testimony. Id. Also, a positive identification by only one witness may be

sufficient to support a defendant’s conviction. Id. at 1137.

To sum, according to the evidence, the following occurred within two

hours on the afternoon of December 4, 2023: D.S. observed his cousin and

J.F. fighting at school; a maroon vehicle pulled alongside of D.S. and his

cousins while they were walking home; someone jumped out of the rear

driver’s side seat and began shooting at D.S.; one of the several shots fired

traveled through D.S.’s wrist; and D.S. identified as J.F. as the shooter at the

scene immediately after the incident.

Further, both D.S. and Detective Salaun testified that J.F. wore a green

hoodie that day. Detective Salaun also observed J.F.’s agitated state as he left

the school grounds, and the maroon vehicle and J.F. converging on each

other. Detective Salaun heard gunshots moments later and D.S. told law

enforcement minutes after he was shot that “Johnny Boy [J.F.’s nickname]”

shot him. D.S. later positively identified a photograph of the juvenile as the

perpetrator, and wrote that he was one hundred percent sure of his

identification. D.S. believed that the juvenile was wearing a green mask “like

a zip-up” at the time of the offense. Also, D.S. knew the juvenile from school

and was familiar with him.

Upon review of the record, and all of the evidence presented at trial,

and despite counsel’s argument regarding the juvenile court’s findings with

24-KA-386 10

respect to the green hoodie, we find that a rational trier of fact could have

found that the evidence was sufficient under the Jackson standard to show

that the juvenile was the perpetrator of the offenses and that the State negated

any reasonable probability of misidentification in order to carry its burden of

proof. The judge did not clearly err and was not manifestly wrong when she

adjudicated J.F. delinquent based on her assessment of reliability of D.S.’s

eyewitness identification considering the Manson factors, and the strong

circumstantial evidence provided by the school resource officer’s testimony.

See Pike, 273 So.3d at 495.

Accordingly, we find this assignment of error is without merit.

ERRORS PATENT

The record was reviewed for errors patent.3 La. C.Cr.P. art. 920; State

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

App. 5th Cir. 1990).

According to the transcript, the judge stated, “An application for post-

conviction relief, including an application for an out-of-time appeal shall be

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

adjudication and disposition have become final under the provisions of

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 914 or 922.” (Emphasis

added). “An” was used at the beginning of the sentence instead of “No.” As

such, it appears J.F. received an incorrect advisal of the two-year prescriptive

period for seeking post-conviction relief as mandated by La. C.Cr.P. art.

930.8. In a juvenile case, such notice should be given. See State in Int. of

3
The Louisiana Children’s Code is silent as to whether an error patent review is mandated in a
juvenile appeal, although this Court has conducted limited reviews for errors patent in the past.
See, e.g, State in the Int. of Z.S., 01-1099 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/26/02), 811 So.2d 1003, 1008. La.
Ch.C. art. 104 provides that, in the absence of procedures prescribed by the Children’s Code, the
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply. This Court is thus authorized by La. C.Cr.P.
art. 920 to conduct a review for errors patent. State in Int. of T.W.-D., 24-136 (La. App. 5 Cir.
6/18/24), 391 So.3d 767, 774 n.11.

24-KA-386 11

B.D., 13-760 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/23/14), 140 So.3d 308, 313, writ denied, 14-

1093 (La. 1/9/15), 157 So.3d 597.

Therefore, by way of this opinion, the juvenile is advised that no

application for post-conviction relief, including an application for an out-of-

time appeal, shall be considered if it is filed more than two years after the

judgment of adjudication and disposition have become final under the

provisions of La. C.Cr.P. arts. 914 or 922. See State in Int. of T.W.-D., 391

So.3d at 776.

DECREE

Based on the foregoing, the juvenile’s adjudications as delinquent and

subsequent dispositions are affirmed.

AFFIRMED

24-KA-386 12

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

24-KA-386
E-NOTIFIED
JUVENILE COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE JENNIFER G. WOMBLE (DISTRICT JUDGE)
MATTHEW R. CLAUSS (APPELLEE) THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE) KATHERINE M. FRANKS (APPELLANT)

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