State of Louisiana v. Patrick Newton Harris

Judgment rendered January 13, 2021.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 992,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 53,662-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

* ****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

PATRICK NEWTON HARRIS Appellant

* ****
Appealed from the
Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Bossier, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 217746

Honorable Allen Parker Self, Jr., Judge

* ****

STROUD, CARMOUCHE, BUCKLE, PLLC Counsel for Appellant
By: Ansel Martin Stroud, III

THE BAEZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
By: Jose Angel Baez

PATRICK NEWTON HARRIS Pro Se

JOHN SCHUYLER MARVIN Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

JOHN MICHAEL LAWRENCE
ANDREW C. JACOBS
RICHARD RUSSELL RAY
Assistant District Attorneys

* ****

Before STEPHENS, BLEICH (Pro Tempore), and BODDIE
(Pro Tempore), JJ.

BLEICH, J. (Pro Tempore), concurring with written reasons.

Boddie (Pro Tempore), J.

Patrick Newton Harris (“Patrick”) was convicted at a bench trial of

manslaughter and sentenced to 39 years at hard labor for the 2016 shooting

death of William Christopher Flowers (“Flowers”), who was his friend and

co-worker. Patrick claimed self-defense, asserting that he had been in fear

for his life after Flowers suddenly attacked him. Patrick had suffered

violence twice at the hands of Flowers a couple of years earlier, which was

around the time when Flowers had engaged in an affair with Patrick’s wife,

Aftan Harris (“Aftan”).

Patrick has appealed his sentence and conviction. After reviewing the

record, the briefs, and the argument of the parties, we conclude the evidence

was insufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found beyond a reasonable

doubt that the homicide was not committed by Patrick in self-defense, and

therefore, reverse his conviction.

BACKGROUND

Patrick, a facility technician, and Flowers, a service technician, were

co-workers at AT&T for 15 years. They reported for work at the same

Shreveport location, and from there were dispatched to their individual job

assignments. The technicians usually worked alone unless they needed help

with a work assignment. Patrick would often depend on Flowers for help.

Patrick and Flowers started socializing outside of work during the

summer of 2013. Their friendship developed quickly, and Patrick

considered Flowers to be like a brother. They were together almost daily,

and would often grill food and watch football games together.

In October of 2013, Aftan and Flowers commenced an extramarital

affair. Flowers was separated from his wife at the time. The affair

continued until it came to light in February of 2014.

On December 31, 2013, Patrick and Aftan attended a New Year’s Eve

party at the home of Sarah and Stephen McCann. Patrick asked Stephen if

Flowers could attend the party so he would not be alone on the holiday.

Stephen, who had met Flowers a few months earlier at a cookout, said it was

okay.

At some point during the evening, the partygoers decided to “play

wrestle” on the trampoline. Patrick measured 6’3” in height and weighed

approximately 230 pounds. Flowers was similar in size. During their

match, Patrick landed face down on the trampoline mat. Flowers gained the

upper hand by getting on Patrick’s back and then placing Patrick in a

stranglehold by wrapping his arm around Patrick’s neck from behind.

Patrick tapped on the mat to no avail in an attempt to get Flowers’ attention

that he wanted to be released. It took McCann getting on the trampoline and

pulling Flowers off Patrick for him to be freed.

On February 15, 2014, Patrick and Flowers met at a Chili’s restaurant

in Shreveport to discuss matters and how they were going to go forward at

work in light of the affair. They consumed mixed drinks at the restaurant,

and the conversation became heated as the affair was discussed. They were

asked to leave the restaurant when their voices grew louder and Patrick

became angry. As he exited the restaurant, Patrick decided that he needed

his phone from his truck in order to ask Aftan for a ride home. Flowers and

Patrick continued to have some words about the affair while they were

2

outside. According to Patrick, Flowers threw him to the ground when he

declined Flowers’ offer of a ride.

A 911 call requesting medical assistance was made. The caller, who

identified himself as “Chris,” told the 911 operator that he had “assaulted”

Patrick.1 Patrick sustained a broken elbow during the incident. Flowers was

not arrested for his role in the injury.

Patrick claimed that he blacked out and that paramedics were standing

over him when he awoke. However, the Shreveport Fire Department report

from the incident stated that personnel went to the scene to find Patrick

standing. Patrick was taken by ambulance to a hospital. The medical

records from the hospital reflect that Patrick did not complain of a loss of

consciousness.

According to those medical records, Patrick told hospital personnel

that he had 12 cans of beer before going to Chili’s, and, acting out of

character, had a physical altercation with Flowers. He landed on his right

elbow when he was pushed to the ground. Nursing notes showed that

Patrick was having suicidal thoughts. The medical records also reflect that

Patrick was removed from the Emergency Room and transported to the

Intensive Care Unit under Physician Emergency Certificate (“PEC”) status

because of violent behavior and alcohol abuse.

In the findings of examination for the PEC, Dr. Giddens wrote,

“ETOH, violent homicidal behavior threatening behavior to wife[.]” Boxes

for “Homicidal?” and “Violent?” were checked for Patrick’s condition. A

box for “Suicidal?” was not checked. Patrick’s ethyl alcohol level on

1
Flowers was referred to as “Chris” throughout the trial.
3

admission was .263. He reported that he drank six cans of beer per day or

higher.

Patrick was discharged to a rehabilitation hospital on February 16.

His injured arm was placed in a sling and he was instructed to follow up

with his orthopedic doctor. The final diagnoses upon discharge were alcohol

abuse, violent behavior, right elbow fracture, severe anxiety, and

hypertension.

The elbow fracture ultimately required the surgical placement of two

plates, numerous screws, and a prosthetic radial head to repair the damage.

The plates were removed, but the radial head remained in his arm. Patrick

underwent a total of two surgeries and rehabilitation. He also had to wear a

device on his right arm for several months to help him regain motion in that

arm. He was on disability from work for approximately six months, and

returned to work in 2014. After Patrick requested a job transfer, AT&T

permitted him to report to a location in Bossier City for approximately eight

weeks before returning to his normal location in Shreveport.

Everything remained uneventful between Patrick and Flowers for the

next two years. Patrick had taken some firearms to a pawn shop to secure a

loan because his income was reduced while he was on short-term disability.

When Flowers found out, he paid approximately $3,000 to the pawn shop to

have the firearms returned to Patrick. He told Patrick to repay him at his

leisure.

On March 24, 2016, Patrick was on short-term disability because of

surgery to repair a condition on both of his eyelids. That afternoon, Patrick

met Aftan and some of her co-workers at a restaurant. He consumed a

4

margarita, two beers, and two shots while there. On the way home, Patrick

stopped at a bank.

Patrick went to Flowers’ apartment early that evening to repay part of

the loan. Patrick would testify at trial that while he was there, he showed a

Taurus .38 revolver (“revolver”) to Flowers since they shared a common

interest in firearms. Patrick, who had a valid concealed carry permit,

returned the revolver to his pants pocket when Flowers had finished looking

at it.

Patrick asked Flowers if he knew where to find marijuana. Flowers

then contacted a co-worker, James Young, about obtaining marijuana.

Patrick left Flowers’ apartment since the marijuana was not available at that

time. He stopped at a restaurant to get dinner for his family before returning

home.

When Young was ready for them to come over, he contacted Flowers,

who then drove to Patrick’s home. He arrived there around 9:00 p.m.

Flowers and Patrick stopped at a convenience store on the way to Young’s

home. While Patrick was inside, Flowers entered the store to tell Patrick

that he (Patrick) was getting text messages from Aftan.

Flowers and Patrick stayed at Young’s home for less than an hour.

While there, they had a beer and played with Young’s dogs. They did not

smoke any marijuana. Young did not notice anything unusual or any tension

between Flowers and Patrick. They hugged Young before leaving.

While Flowers and Patrick were returning from their marijuana

excursion, Daniel Lenard arrived at the Harrises’ subdivision to meet one of

their neighbors, Aaron Daniel. Daniel had instructed Lenard to stop near the

corner of his street and then let him know he was there. When Lenard’s
5

vehicle came to a stop near the Harrises’ driveway, Aftan asked him what he

was doing. While he was explaining, Flowers’ Corvette pulled in front of

him. Flowers exited the Corvette without turning off the engine, stood in

front of Lenard’s car, and placed his hands on the hood. These actions

signaled to Lenard not to go anywhere. Patrick approached the passenger-

side window of Lenard’s vehicle and asked Lenard what he was doing there.

Patrick told Lenard that what he was doing was “a good way to get shot.”

Patrick never showed the revolver to Lenard or threatened him with it.

Daniel soon arrived and vouched for Lenard. Daniel remarked that

Aftan needed to control her husband. Apparently satisfied with Daniel’s

explanation, Flowers touched Patrick on the arm and told him to go inside.

Lenard and Daniel then left in Lenard’s vehicle.

Patrick scolded Aftan for not telling Lenard to leave. Patrick and

Aftan claimed that Flowers then grabbed Patrick by his polo shirt and began

pounding on his chest. With Aftan’s assistance, Patrick was able to break

away from Flowers and run toward his garage.2 Flowers caught up with him

and threw him down to the ground in the front yard. Flowers began striking

Patrick as he straddled him. With Flowers standing over him, Patrick

managed to draw his revolver from the right pocket of his cargo shorts and

point it at Flowers. Patrick fired five shots, all of which struck Flowers, who

ultimately died from his injuries.

Following the shooting, Aftan administered aid to Flowers. Patrick

went into the garage, lit a cigarette, and called his mother-in-law and mother

to tell them what had happened. He remained there until police arrived.

2
The garage faced the street.
6

Tina Tomlson and Mike Tomlson lived across the yard from where

the shooting occurred.3 Their kitchen faced the yard and its window was

open. Tina was in the kitchen when she heard the gunshots and Aftan

scream. She looked out the window and saw Aftan helping Flowers. She

also saw Patrick on the phone. Mike Tomlson heard the gunshots from his

living room. When he went outside, he saw Patrick walking toward the

garage. He heard Patrick say, “It’s okay. He tackled me.” He assumed

Patrick said that to Aftan.

Another neighbor, Darold Westall, came outside as well. He stayed

on the phone with the 911 operator as Aftan attempted to stop the bleeding.

The Harrises’s two school-aged children were inside sleeping at the time.

Investigation

Jeffrey Ross was a crime scene investigator with the Bossier City

Police Department (“BCPD”). He documented the scene and collected

evidence, which was dispersed over an area. Among the items collected

were the revolver, a pack of cigarettes, a single cigarette, and a wallet

belonging to Patrick. The Corvette’s engine was still running when Ross

was at the scene.

Lieutenant Brad Kalmbach was the crime scene supervisor and

property manager for the BCPD. He collected Patrick’s clothes and

photographed him. He found that Patrick was calm and did not appear to

have been in a struggle. Lt. Kalmbach did not notice any physical marks,

bruises, abrasions, or anything of that nature on Patrick. When he

3
The yard was between the Tomlson and Harris homes.
7

photographed Patrick, he did not see anything which stood out indicating

Patrick had been in a struggle.

Detective Karen McDonald, a violent crimes investigator with the

BCPD, interviewed Aftan and Patrick at her office. She interviewed Aftan

first. Her interview of Patrick took place around 2:00 a.m. She saw a scrape

on the inner side of his right leg and a couple of small grass stains on his

shorts, but she did not see any signs of the struggle that Patrick described to

her.

Det. McDonald read Patrick’s rights to him. She then asked him if he

would acknowledge that she had done so by signing the back of the rights

card. The back of the card contained a waiver, which she did not read to

him. Patrick asked her, “This is not waiving anything, right?” Det.

McDonald replied, “No sir, it’s just to acknowledge that I read this card to

you.”

Patrick told Det. McDonald that Flowers became belligerent when he

asked Aftan why the car was there. He described how Flowers stood over

him and had pushed him to the ground three times. He told the detective

that he was on the ground and Flowers was “straight up” at his feet. Flowers

was threatening him, saying “Get up” and “Do it.” He said he was scared

for his life, and that Flowers had already held his (Patrick’s) breath before.

Pre-trial proceedings

Patrick was indicted for the second degree murder of Flowers. A free

and voluntary hearing regarding Patrick’s statement to Det. McDonald was

held on June 30, 2017. The trial court conceded that Patrick’s question,

“This is not waiving anything, right?”, at first appeared troubling. However,

when that question was evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances
8

surrounding the interrogation, the isolated question did not seem to indicate

a lack of understanding or appear to be a misrepresentation that would

require suppression of his statement. The court concluded that the State had

met its burden of proving the validity of the waiver by a preponderance of

the evidence. Patrick applied for a supervisory writ, which this court denied

on March 22, 2018. The supreme court denied his writ on August 31, 2018.

TRIAL

A bench trial was held in this matter beginning on May 8, 2019.

However, due to certain delays, the trial concluded on August 28, 2019.

Patrick testified that Flowers nearly strangled him on the trampoline,

and he believed that he blacked out during the episode. Patrick attributed

Flowers’ behavior on the trampoline to showing off and wanting to be the

alpha male.

Stephen McCann, the party’s host, described the trampoline incident

at trial. When Patrick fell facedown, Flowers got on top of Patrick’s back

and placed him in a chokehold. Patrick told Flowers, “Okay, you got me.”

Patrick also began tapping on the trampoline mat to indicate he was finished,

but Flowers continued to choke Patrick to the point where he was no longer

able to speak and was close to being unconscious. McCann told Flowers to

release Patrick, but Flowers did not respond. McCann had to climb on the

trampoline and pull Flowers off Patrick. He recalled that Patrick was able to

catch his breath in a couple of seconds. Flowers then told McCann that he

was ready to wrestle him, who replied that wrestling was over for the night.

McCann had not observed any animosity or unfriendliness between Patrick

and Flowers before that incident.

9

Jennifer Alexander was the supervisor of Flowers and Patrick at

AT&T, and she had worked with them since 2006. She was close to

Flowers and his wife, having socialized with and gone on vacations with

them. Alexander testified that the relationship between Patrick and Flowers

became a little rocky after the affair, but once Patrick returned to work from

his elbow injury, it was almost like nothing had ever happened. They

worked fine together, and everything seemed to be normal. She would only

put Patrick and Flowers on the same assignment if Patrick requested it. As

far as she knew, they had stopped hanging out together outside of work after

the affair became public. Patrick never exhibited fear of Flowers in front of

her.

Matt Wood was a union representative at AT&T and knew Flowers

for 17 years. He testified that Flowers’ general reputation among his fellow

employees was of someone who was hotheaded and explosive, and who

should be avoided. Wood thought Flowers’ reputation worsened over the

last four to five years of his life.

Defense counsel attempted to elicit testimony from Aftan and Patrick

about their knowledge of an incident between Flowers and his wife that

occurred in June of 2013. The State objected each time, and the trial judge

sustained both objections. A 911 operator and the responding patrol officer

were allowed to testify about the incident. Flowers and his wife, Heather,

struggled over a weapon during an argument, and a shot went off. Heather

called 911 to report that Flowers was locked in a bedroom and threatening to

kill himself. She also reported that Flowers had stopped taking his anti-

depressants and seeing his therapist. Flowers surrendered to police

10

negotiators after a few hours and was committed to University Health

because of the danger he posed to himself and others.

Patrick testified that he first became fearful of Flowers following the

trampoline incident. He had asked Stephen McCann if Flowers could attend

the party because Flowers was living by himself in an apartment and was

going to be alone that holiday night.

Regarding the affair, Patrick testified that Aftan left for a few days

after he learned about the affair. He was angry with Aftan and Flowers, but

forgave them. Patrick also went to counseling.

Patrick claimed that he initiated a meeting with Flowers at a Starbucks

coffee shop prior to returning to work following the Chili’s incident. Patrick

thought they needed to talk about how things were going to be since they

would be working together again. He recalled that Flowers, who had

previously apologized for the trampoline incident, apologized for the affair

and the elbow injury. Patrick claimed they decided that would be the last

time they would discuss the affair, and would go on with their lives and let

the past be the past. Patrick testified that they worked together fine after he

returned to work, and while it seemed they were the best of friends, they

were really just being cordial during working hours. He did not invite

Flowers to his house or go out with him after that.

Aftan testified that she became angry when Patrick told her of his

plans to go with Flowers to buy marijuana from Young. She never wanted

to see Flowers again.

Patrick claimed that Flowers was somber and not very talkative when

Flowers picked him up. He seemed down to Patrick. Patrick also claimed

that Flowers indicated to him that evening that he was considering harming
11

himself. Patrick became concerned about their safety during the drive

because Flowers was driving erratically.

Young was aware there were past issues between Flowers and Patrick,

but he did not notice any problems between them that night. As far as he

knew, they were trying to mend their relationship. They seemed fine at his

house and there was no tension.

Patrick testified that when he saw Lenard’s car, he remarked to

Flowers that he wondered if it was the same car that had been waiting on

Aaron Daniel before, but Flowers did not respond. Patrick suspected that

Daniel was dealing drugs.

Lenard testified that Patrick came to his passenger side window and

asked, “Why the f**k are you parked in front of my house?” Patrick also

asked him, “Why my house?” a couple of times, then said, “This is a good

way to get shot. Do you want to get shot tonight?” Patrick seemed agitated

to Lenard, and while Patrick was not screaming, he spoke to Lenard in an

elevated and serious tone. Lenard was fearful but never saw a weapon or

was threatened with a weapon. Lenard believed that Patrick was trying to

intimidate him into leaving. Lenard also testified that he felt threatened

when Flowers placed his hands on Lenard’s car.

Lenard recalled that after Flowers realized he was being truthful about

waiting on Aaron, Flowers told Patrick, “Come on, man, let’s just go inside.

Let’s just go inside. It’s nothing.” Flowers touched Patrick lightly on the

arm like he was trying to pull him away. He did not see them arguing. The

last thing Lenard saw before driving away was Patrick, Aftan, and Flowers

talking.

12

Less than five minutes after they left, Lenard saw BCPD vehicles

driving at a high rate of speed in the direction of the neighborhood. Aaron

Daniel received a text from his mother asking if he was okay because she

had heard shots.

After stepping away from Lenard’s car, Patrick began to fuss at Aftan

for not getting Lenard to move before he got there. Patrick testified that

Flowers then grabbed him by the shirt and started pounding on his chest with

his shirt in his hands and saying, “I can’t do this anymore. I cannot be your

friend anymore. I can’t do this.” Patrick described Flowers’ action as a

violent shoving back and forth.

According to Patrick, he tried to back away by breaking Flowers’ grip

on him. In the meantime, Aftan was trying to pull Flowers back. Patrick

stated that he was eventually able to break free, but the momentum from

pulling away caused him to fall down to his left knee, and when he got back

up, he was pushed back down on his right arm.

Patrick testified that he was able to get up from the ground and run

towards the garage because Aftan was holding Flowers back. He wanted to

get away to call 911. He claimed that when Flowers broke free from Aftan

and caught up to him, Flowers grabbed him from behind and threw him

down on his right arm. He hit the ground and rolled over. He tried to get

back up, but Flowers straddled him, with Flowers’ knees on the ground

around Patrick.

Patrick recalled that Aftan was trying to pull Flowers off while telling

Flowers to stop. Both of them were telling Flowers to leave. Patrick

testified that as he tried to protect his head because of his recent eyelid

surgery, Flowers was punching him on the head, arms, and torso.
13

Patrick explained that he rolled over to his left and reached for the

revolver which was partially hanging out of his right front pocket. When he

pulled the revolver out, Flowers, who was still being pulled on by Aftan,

moved back a little bit. However, according to Patrick, even after he pointed

the revolver at Flowers and told Flowers to stop and leave him alone,

Flowers still came at him and reached for the revolver. Patrick claimed

Flowers said that he knew what he would do to him and that Patrick had

better shoot him.4 Patrick testified it scared him that Flowers was in range to

take the gun, and he thought Flowers would surely kill him if he did not fire

his weapon. Patrick was scared for his life. Patrick remarked that despite

having a gun pointed at him, Flowers never stopped or retreated, and he

never threw up his arms and said “don’t shoot.” Instead, Flowers did the

opposite and came at him.

Patrick explained that Flowers was not standing erect at his feet when

he fired. He claimed that Flowers was straight up at his feet at one point, but

not when he fired. Flowers was on top of him, straddling him, and reaching

for the gun as he pointed it at him, and Patrick told Flowers to stop and leave

him alone.

Patrick described how Flowers was still kneeling when he pulled out

the revolver, but then stood up erect when Patrick shot him. Patrick did not

think Flowers was going to fall because he was just standing there. He

thought he had missed Flowers, but then Flowers fell backwards toward the

sidewalk. Asked if Flowers continued to stand erect after he finished firing,

Patrick replied, “It seemed that way. It was a - - it was a horrifying

4
“You know what I’ll do. You are going to have to shoot me, mother***er” or
“You know what I’ve done to you before and you better shoot me, mother***er.”
14

situation.” When he finished firing, Patrick extended his right arm out and

let the revolver fall from his hand onto the grass.

Patrick testified that in the aftermath, a neighbor, Darold Westall,

asked him what he had done, and he replied that Flowers had attacked him.

Patrick believed that Flowers snapped that night as Flowers’ actions in his

yard took him by surprise. Patrick testified that he knew what Flowers had

done to him before, Flowers was going to go as far as he could, and it made

Patrick fear for his life. He was fearful that Flowers would take the gun and

turn it on him. Patrick denied that he shot Flowers out of revenge for the

affair.

Aftan testified that after Lenard and Daniel drove away, she was

trying to move her husband and Flowers to the garage to smoke with her and

calm down. Flowers grabbed Patrick by the front of his shirt and began

pounding him in the chest by pulling forward on his shirt and then pushing

back against his chest. She recalled that Flowers told Patrick that he was

sick of this and tired of trying to be his friend.

Aftan described how she grabbed Flowers by the neck to pull him

away from her husband, who was able to break free. Patrick ran toward the

garage while she momentarily held Flowers back. Patrick took a few steps

before falling. Flowers then ran after Patrick.

Aftan testified that her husband made it to the edge of the garage

before Flowers grabbed Patrick from behind with his arms wrapped around

Patrick. Flowers lifted Patrick, brought him back a short distance, and then

threw Patrick to the ground. Patrick landed on his right arm.

According to Aftan, Flowers then straddled Patrick’s legs while down

on one knee and bent over. Patrick was in the fetal position on his right side
15

as he tried to protect his face and elbow with his left arm while Flowers

struck him with hard blows mainly to his torso.

Aftan testified that she pleaded with Flowers to stop as she pulled him

by the waist in an effort to get him off her husband. When she was able to

pull Flowers back enough, Patrick rotated out of the fetal position, drew his

weapon, and asked Flowers to stop. Aftan explained that at that point,

Flowers was out of his kneeling position and now standing over Patrick,

whose legs remained between Flowers’ legs the entire time. Aftan denied

that Flowers was below Patrick’s feet.

Aftan testified that Flowers told her husband, “Shoot me

motherf***er. Shoot me.” She recalled that when Flowers said this, he was

not standing straight up, but was standing with his upper body curved over

the top of Patrick. Flowers was leaning forward and reaching for the

revolver. She remembered Flowers being close enough to take the revolver.

Patrick fired when Flowers lunged at him.

According to Aftan, she was still holding onto Flowers by his waist

when the first shot was fired. She screamed and let go. She recalled that

Flowers took three steps backwards and then fell back. She went to his aid

before going to the garage to get a phone to call 911. She then returned to

Flowers in order to apply pressure to his wounds. She recalled that Patrick

was still in the yard when she went to get the phone, but did not know if he

had remained there when she returned to Flowers.

Aftan testified that she had not met with Flowers from February of

2014 until the night of the shooting. She still had feelings for Flowers and

did not want to see him or her husband get hurt.

16

Interviews with Detective McDonald

Detective McDonald testified at trial that Patrick became tearful at

times during the interview. He told her more than once that he had been in

fear for his life. She agreed that she did not press Patrick for more details

after he told her that Flowers had put him in a position before where he

thought he was going to die. She testified that she did not ask Patrick

exactly what Flowers had done to him previously. That did not seem

important to her at the time of the interview.

Patrick testified that he told Det. McDonald that Flowers stood over

the top of him and dared him to get back up. He also testified that he told

her that Flowers pushed him to the ground twice and wrestled him to the

ground once.

Patrick explained that while he was sober during the interview, he was

extremely rattled and shaken. It was very difficult for him to understand

what had happened, much less talk about it and explain the way it occurred.

He believed that he would be asked additional questions about the shooting

later. Det. McDonald did not press him for details when he mentioned what

Flowers had done to him before.

Aftan testified that she told Det. McDonald and a BCPD officer that

Flowers was the aggressor, that he attacked Patrick, and that Patrick had

tried to get away. She also claimed she told them that Flowers had hurt

Patrick before.

Autopsy

Dr. Frank Peretti, who performed Flowers’ autopsy on March 25,

2016, testified as an expert in forensic pathology. He was unable to

determine the sequence in which the shots were fired. One bullet entered the
17

right side of the neck, went through the spinal cord, and ended in the left

side of the neck. That shot would have immediately incapacitated Flowers.

Another bullet caused a superficial graze wound to his right interior

forearm, just above the thumb side of the wrist, and then entered the right

side of the chest. The bullet lodged in the right lung. Dr. Peretti could not

determine whether the thumb was facing up or down when the wound was

received. He also could not tell whether the wound was received when

Flowers was actually reaching for something. However, because the wound

went across the wrist, he agreed this meant the hand would not have been

pointed in the direction of the weapon. He thought the wrist wound was

consistent with a defensive position, even though he could not characterize it

as one, and the wrist would have been in front of Flowers’ chest when the

bullet struck. That shot did not lead to a fatal wound immediately. Flowers

would have been able to continue moving if that was the first shot.

The third bullet was to the left upper chest but did not enter the chest

cavity. It was a flesh wound and the bullet ended in the shoulder. A fourth

bullet caused a flesh wound as it grazed the left costal margin and ended in

the back without entering the chest. Flowers would have remained

ambulatory after receiving those two wounds.

A fifth bullet entered the subcutaneous tissue on the back of the neck

and hit the occipital skull bone. Although that bullet did not enter the brain,

the impact from it caused subarachnoid hemorrhaging. That injury would

have immediately incapacitated Flowers. In summary, Flowers would not

have remained standing after that shot or after the shot which fired the bullet

that struck his spinal cord. His hands would have dropped immediately if

raised at the time the bullet struck his spinal cord.
18

Dr. Peretti did not find any burn or powder marks around the wounds

or any evidence of close-range firing on the skin. He opined that the wounds

were all from shots fired no closer than 24 inches away. Anything more

than 24 inches away is considered a distant shot. All of the bullets were

fired at an upward trajectory, with upward meaning the angle of the muzzle

relative to the target. He could not determine precise angles. Dr. Peretti

agreed that impact from a bullet could move a body some, but did not know

whether it did and to what extent in this matter.

The toxicology report showed that Flowers had antidepressants within

therapeutic range in his system. His alcohol levels were .078 in his blood,

.093 in his vitreous fluid, and .155 in his urine. While Flowers received

blood as the paramedics tried to save him, that would not have affected the

alcohol levels found in his urine or vitreous fluid.

Firearms identification expert

Richard Beighley, the firearm section supervisor of the North

Louisiana Crime Lab, testified as an expert for the State in firearm

identification. He explained that to determine the distance from a muzzle to

a target, he begins by looking for gunshot residue deposited on the target or

on something in between the target and the muzzle. If he finds a gunpowder

pattern, then he will try to duplicate that pattern by firing the weapon to

determine a muzzle-to-target distance.

Beighley examined a long-sleeve shirt that had been worn by

Flowers and which had eight holes. Using a stereo microscope, he looked at

areas around each of the holes for gunpowder residue. He did not find any

type of gunpowder residue in the area of any hole. Beighley explained that

19

the absence of a gunpowder pattern on the shirt precluded him from making

a more definite determination of distance.

Beighley explained that a rule of thumb he sometimes utilized for a

.38 is there would be a pattern present if the gun was fired within three feet

of the target, and there would be traces of gunpowder present if it was fired

beyond three feet and up to six feet away. He would probably not find any

gunpowder residue if the .38 was fired from more than six feet away.

Although he did not find a pattern, he did find a total of ten partially

burned or unburned gunpowder particles. Four of those particles were

discovered on the examination paper while he was handling the shirt. The

other six particles were found after he performed a debris collection from the

shirt.

Beighley did not consider 10 particles of gunpowder to be much

considering five shots were fired. He believed that he would have found a

lot more than 10 particles of gunpowder if the gun had been fired three feet

away, or at arm’s length. However, he would not have expected to find any

gunpowder on the shirt whatsoever if the distance had been more than six

feet as gunpowder from a .38 would not travel beyond six feet.

Beighley concluded that in order to get the 10 particles of gunpowder

that he found, at least one shot was fired less than six feet away from

Flowers, and it could have been as close as three feet.

Expert crime scene analysis

Owen McDonnell testified on behalf of Patrick as an expert in crime

scene analysis. He reviewed the reports, statements, physical evidence, and

measurements taken at the crime scene.

20

Aftan testified that Patrick’s wallet and pack of cigarettes fell out of

his pocket when Flowers was slinging him around. The wallet and pack of

cigarettes were found 3.9 feet from the revolver. The pack of cigarettes

appeared to be crushed, which McDonnell thought could have occurred

when someone fell on them. A loose cigarette was also found in the grass.

McDonnell believed that the distribution of the wallet, gun, and cigarettes on

the grass was consistent with an altercation in the front yard. The position of

the revolver was also consistent with Patrick’s statement that he was on his

back and deposited the gun out to his side after he finished firing it.

McDonnell reviewed photos of Patrick taken by Lieutenant

Kalmbach. He noted that Patrick’s polo shirt showed some stretching

around the neckline, as well as wrinkles and other stretched areas. Patrick

had a slight redness to his chest. McDonnell thought the chest redness and

shirt wrinkling were consistent with Flowers grabbing Patrick by the front of

his shirt and pounding him in the chest. McDonnell also noted a scrape on

Patrick’s left shin and scrape marks on the inside of his right knee and right

upper leg.

Patrick was wearing cargo shorts during the altercation. McDonnell

noted grass stains on the shorts in three distinct areas. There was a group of

grass stains along the right cargo pocket. Those stains were consistent with

someone lying on their side. There was also a grass stain on the left front

side in the area of a cargo pocket. McDonnell could not say whether Patrick

was on his left side or on his front when that stain was made, but at one time

the front of the left pocket came into contact with the grass. McDonnell

explained that because those stains were separated, that meant the stains

were from separate contacts with the ground. They were also consistent
21

with Patrick’s statement that he was on his right side and that he fell to the

front at one point. Finally, there were grass stains that stopped at the top of

the back of the shorts on one side. McDonnell testified that the stains on the

back were lineal, which showed they could have been caused by contact

with grass during a rocking movement. He believed that the stain on the

back of the shorts was consistent with Patrick’s statement that he rotated to

his back.

McDonnell noted a small grass stain at the top of one of Patrick’s

socks, as well as dirt along the side of his right shoe. He concluded that

Patrick’s scrapes, the grass stains, and the dirt on the shoe showed that

Patrick was in contact with the grass at least three different times.

McDonnell observed a substantial amount of dirt on the side of

Flowers’ right shoe. He thought this dirt was consistent with a person

leaning down and having the side of their foot in contact with dirt.

McDonnell testified that Dr. Peretti’s report that the wounds were at

an upward trajectory was consistent with Patrick’s statement that he was on

the ground and fired upward. He also testified that under nationally-

accepted guidelines, the absence of gunpowder residue is not a basis for

expressing a distance determination.

McDonnell concluded that none of the physical evidence he observed

was inconsistent with Patrick’s or Aftan’s statements as to how the events

happened. The grass and dirt stains, markings, wrinkles, and abrasions

supported the general framework of what Patrick and Aftan told him had

occurred. In particular, the statement that Patrick was on the ground

multiple times was consistent with the scrape found on his left shin, the

scrapes inside of his right upper leg above the knee, and the separation of
22

stains on his shorts. Aftan’s and Patrick’s statements about the altercation

are the most likely explanation for how the physical evidence resulted.

Ruling

The trial court gave extensive oral reasons for finding Patrick guilty of

manslaughter. The court was not certain that Patrick passed out during the

trampoline episode. Despite what happened to Patrick on the trampoline, he

continued his friendship with Flowers. Regarding the Chili’s incident, the

court was not convinced that Flowers actually used the word “assault” when

he called 911. The court did not think Patrick lost consciousness when his

elbow was fractured. The court found it extremely telling that the physician

who did the PEC indicated that Patrick was homicidal and violent. Alcohol

abuse was listed first in the final diagnosis, making it the condition requiring

the most treatment. The court noted that despite the broken elbow, Patrick

accepted a loan from Flowers, they continued to be friends, and they

continued to work on jobs at the request of Patrick. The court also noted the

two-year gap between the Chili’s incident and the shooting.

Lenard was found to be a credible witness. Patrick’s testimony about

Flowers driving erratically during the marijuana errand was not believed by

the court.

The court could not make sense of the testimony about what occurred

from the time that Lenard drove away until the shooting. In reference to

McDonnell’s testimony, the court wondered which statements from Patrick

and Aftan were consistent with the physical evidence since their own

statements differed depending on when they were made. The court

specifically noted that Aftan contradicted herself in a couple of ways. Later,

at sentencing, the court was very blunt about her lack of credibility, stating
23

that it had been correct in attaching absolutely no credibility to her

testimony.

The court addressed what the photographs of the clothing showed and

did not show. There were some grass stains on Patrick’s pants, but there

was no stretching on the polo shirt that indicated there was pounding back

and forth. The shoes, socks, and shirt were in pristine condition. While

there was a mark on Patrick’s chest, the court did not see any abrasions on

his legs.

The court believed there had been an altercation before the shooting

and that Patrick was agitated. The court believed that Flowers was standing

over Patrick, but not that he lunged for the gun. Finally, the court noted the

testimony from Patrick and Aftan that Flowers took a few backward steps

after being shot. There was no indication that the shots would have caused

that, especially considering that according to Dr. Peretti, two of the shots

would have dropped him. In conclusion, the court found that the State

proved beyond a reasonable doubt that no reasonable person could have

believed that Patrick was in imminent physical harm that night.

The guilty verdict was rendered on August 28, 2019. Patrick filed a

motion for a post-verdict judgment of acquittal on October 31, 2019. A

sentencing hearing was held on November 5, 2019. Two weeks later,

Patrick filed a motion to reconsider sentence on the grounds that his

sentence was excessive. He argued that the trial court gave too much weight

to certain unnamed factors, but then failed to give appropriate weight to

particularized La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 factors. The motions were denied.

Patrick has appealed his conviction and sentence. He argues: (1) the

evidence was insufficient to support his manslaughter conviction as the State
24

failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense;

(2) the admission of his statement to Detective McDonald violated his right

against self-incrimination under the United States and Louisiana

Constitutions; (3) the trial court erred in not allowing Patrick to testify about

his knowledge of Flowers’ violent behavior; and (4) his sentence is

excessive.

DISCUSSION

When issues are raised on appeal both as to sufficiency of the

evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court must first

determine whether there was sufficient evidence to convict. State v.

Hearold, 603 So. 2d 731 (La. 1992).

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence

claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

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

elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v.

Tate, 01-1658 (La. 5/20/03), 851 So. 2d 921, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 905, 124

S. Ct. 1604, 158 L. Ed. 2d 248 (2004). This standard, now legislatively

embodied in La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with

a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the

fact finder. State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So. 2d 517; State v.

Dotie, 43,819 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/14/09), 1 So. 3d 833, writ denied, 09-0310

(La. 11/06/09), 21 So. 3d 297.

The trier of fact makes credibility determinations and may accept or

reject the testimony of any witness. State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00),

775 So. 2d 1022, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840, 121 S. Ct. 104, 148 L. Ed. 2d
25

62 (2000). In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict

with physical evidence, one witness’s testimony, if believed by the trier of

fact, is sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v.

Robinson, 50,643 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/22/16), 197 So. 3d 717, writ denied, 16-

1479 (La. 5/19/17), 221 So. 3d 78; State v. Gullette, 43,032 (La. App. 2 Cir.

2/13/08), 975 So. 2d 753. The appellate court does not assess credibility or

reweigh the evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d

442; State v. Green, 49,741 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/15/15), 164 So. 3d 331.

Direct evidence provides proof of the existence of a fact, for example,

a witness’s testimony that he saw or heard something. State v. Lilly, 468 So.

2d 1154 (La. 1985). Circumstantial evidence provides proof of collateral

facts and circumstances, from which the existence of the main fact may be

inferred according to reason and common experience. Id. When the State

relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential

element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends

to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable

hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Lilly, supra; State v.

Green, supra.

The appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to

the prosecution and determines whether an alternative hypothesis is

sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Calloway, 07-2306 (La. 1/21/09),

1 So. 3d 417; State v. Garner, 45,474 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/18/10), 47 So. 3d

584.

Where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the

resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility of the
26

witnesses, the matter is one of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.

State v. Green, supra; State v. Glover, 47,311 (La. App. 2 Cir. 10/10/12),

106 So. 3d 129, writ denied, 12-2667 (La. 5/24/13), 116 So. 3d 659. Such

testimony alone is sufficient even where the State does not introduce

medical, scientific, or physical evidence. State v. Larkins, 51,540 (La. App.

2 Cir. 9/27/17), 243 So. 3d 1220, writ denied, 17-1900 (La. 9/28/18), 253

So. 3d 154. The trier of fact is charged to make a credibility determination

and may, within the bounds of rationality, accept or reject the testimony of

any witness in whole or in part; the reviewing court may impinge on that

discretion only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due

process of law. State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So. 2d 1022,

cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840, 121 S. Ct. 104, 148 L. Ed. 2d 62 (2000).

As relevant to the facts of this case, manslaughter is defined in La.

R.S. 14:31(A)(1) as:

A homicide which would be murder under either Article 30
(first degree murder) or Article 30.1 (second degree murder),
but the offense is committed in sudden passion or heat of blood
immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an
average person of his self-control and cool reflection.
Provocation shall not reduce a homicide to manslaughter if the
jury finds that the offender’s blood had actually cooled, or that
an average person’s blood would have cooled, at the time the
offense was committed[.]

A homicide is justified when it is committed in self-defense by one

who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or

receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself

from that danger. La. R.S. 14:20(A)(1). Patrick asserted that he acted in

self-defense. When self-defense is raised as an issue by the defendant, the

State has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the

homicide was not perpetrated in self-defense. State ex rel. D.P.B., 02-1742
27

(La. 05/20/03), 846 So. 2d 753; State v. Allen, 50,703 (La. App. 2 Cir.

8/10/16), 200 So. 3d 376, writ denied, 16-1734 (La. 9/6/17), 224 So. 3d 981.

When the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in a self-

defense case, the question becomes whether, viewing the evidence in the

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

found beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not committed in

self-defense. State v. Matthews, 464 So. 2d 298 (La.1985); State v. Allen,

supra.

Patrick argues that no reasonable trier of fact could have found

beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not committed in self-

defense. He asserts that the State’s case was based on circumstantial

evidence that failed to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. This

hypothesis was that based on the great bodily harm caused by Flowers in the

past and Patrick’s knowledge of Flowers’ reputation for explosive and

erratic behavior, he reasonably believed his actions were necessary to avoid

imminent danger of great bodily harm or death. The State argues in

opposition that the evidence actually proved all the essential elements of

second degree murder, but the trial judge noted mitigation and returned a

responsive verdict of manslaughter.

The evidence presented at trial established beyond any reasonable

doubt that Patrick reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of

losing his life or receiving great bodily harm that night in his yard, and that

shooting Flowers was necessary to save himself from that danger. We

therefore conclude that he acted in self-defense.

There was nothing in the record indicating that Patrick had acted

aggressively toward Flowers in the past, including when he learned of the
28

affair two years before the shooting. On the contrary, Flowers acted without

provocation when putting Patrick in a chokehold on the trampoline. It took

the intervention of a third party to free Patrick and possibly prevent a severe

injury.

Emotions were obviously high at the Chili’s restaurant considering

Patrick had recently learned of his wife’s infidelity with Flowers, yet Patrick

was the one who left the scene with a serious injury. The trial judge seemed

to minimize Patrick’s injury and instead focused on his mental condition at

the hospital as documented in the medical records, which were a joint

exhibit. Notably, there was no testimony at trial from any of the personnel

at the hospital elaborating on Patrick’s mental condition that night.

The two incidents occurred two years before the shooting, and by all

accounts, there were never any subsequent problems between Patrick and

Flowers until the shooting. However, both incidents had occurred outside of

work, and Patrick had limited his interactions with Flowers after working

hours.

Without question, Patrick overreacted to Lenard’s presence when he

returned with Flowers, who presented a threatening presence to Lenard as

well. It is not entirely clear what provoked Flowers to begin shoving

Patrick. There is nothing in this record contradicting Patrick’s assertion that

he attempted to escape to the garage, but was prevented from doing so by

Flowers. Whether Patrick incorrectly counted the number of times he was

pushed to the ground is immaterial. This was a fast-moving, dynamic

situation.

It is also immaterial whether Flowers was standing entirely upright or

standing over Patrick when the first shot was fired, even if Flowers, as found
29

by the trial court, was not reaching for the revolver. Dr. Peretti testified that

all the shots were fired at an upward trajectory, which supports Patrick’s

claim that he was on the ground when he fired the revolver. The State’s

firearm expert testified that at least one shot was fired at a distance no closer

than three feet and no farther away than six feet between the muzzle and the

target. A distance of three to six feet between the muzzle and the target is

not much separation when: (1) Flowers had a history of acting violently

toward Patrick; (2) Flowers suddenly started shoving Patrick in his yard; (3)

Flowers pursued Patrick when he tried to retreat to his garage; and (4)

Patrick was in the strategically vulnerable position of being on the ground at

the feet of Flowers when Flowers had already overpowered him.

In summary, even when the evidence is viewed in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, we find that no rational trier of fact could have

found beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide of Flowers was not

committed in self-defense. Because we reverse the manslaughter conviction

of Patrick, it is unnecessary for this court to address his remaining

assignments of error.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence of Patrick

Newton Harris are reversed, and defendant is ordered discharged.

REVERSED.

30

BLEICH, J. (Pro Tempore) concurring,

Moments before the shooting, defendant had just – for the fourth

separate time – been attacked by Flowers.

The conviction rendered in this case must be reversed.

As stated in the original opinion, this court is mandated to review the

sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction under the standards set

forth in Jackson v. Virginia and La. C. Cr. P. art. 821. Further, under the

Jackson standard, this court is constrained to consider all of the evidence

introduced at trial “regardless of whether that evidence was admitted

erroneously.” McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 138, 130 S. Ct. 665, 676,

175 L. Ed. 2d 582 (2010); State v. Lamothe, 98-2056 (La. 11/25/98), 722 So.

2d 987; State v. Hearold, 603 So. 2d 731 (La. 1992); State v. Robinson,

51,830 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/28/18), 246 So. 3d 725, writ denied, 18-0573 (La.

2/11/19), 263 So. 3d 725; State v. Major, 19-0621 (La. App. 1 Cir.

11/15/19), 290 So. 3d 1205, writ denied, 20-00286 (La. 7/31/20), 300 So. 3d

398.

This writer has refrained from substituting his judgment for that of the

trier of fact relative to the credibility of witnesses. Indeed, the learned trial

judge was required to make some difficult credibility decisions and he was

most conscientious in performing that responsibility.

Succinctly, the primary issue before us is whether the State of

Louisiana proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant did not act in

self-defense. This issue was thoroughly examined by this panel under the

1

Jackson standard. Our analysis involved consideration of the entire record,

including admissible as well as inadmissible items of evidence.1

While giving great deference to the trial court’s assessment of

credibility and the Jackson standard, the record contains objective items of

evidence which are compelling and not subject to contradiction. This

evidence is considered in the context of the state’s burden of proving beyond

a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense.

At trial, there was much testimony, both lay and expert, concerning

the distance between the pistol and Flowers, whether the victim lunged for

the pistol or whether he was standing at defendant’s feet. Yet, one

uncontradicted fact gleaned from all of the testimony and evidence is that

defendant fired each shot in an upward direction. As a result, there can be

no dispute that Flowers was in a superior position to defendant, who was

lying on the ground in his own yard.

There can be much speculation about what happened and whom to

believe. However, from a forensic standpoint, it is indisputable that Flowers

was positioned over the defendant while he was on the ground. It is illogical

1
This writer considered, under the Jackson standard, the defendant’s inculpatory
statement, which was a pivotal consideration of the trial court as to defendant’s
credibility at trial. The trial court indicated in its written ruling that the statement, at least
in part, suggested that defendant was not credible, thus leading to his conviction. In this
writer’s opinion, the inculpatory statement should not have been considered at all. The
record shows that defendant was misled by the officer, intentionally or unintentionally,
while “waiving” his rights. At one point, the trial court expressed concern over this issue.
Most importantly, the trial court adopted an incorrect standard for admissibility of the
inculpatory statement, requiring that the state prove admissibility by a “preponderance of
the evidence.” (Trial court opinion, R.p. 163). Rather, the burden for admitting such a
statement is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” La. C. Cr. P. art. 703(D); State v. Hunt, 09-
1589 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So. 3d 746; State v. Odums, 50,969 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/30/16),
210 So. 3d 850, writ denied, 17-0296 (La. 11/13/17), 229 So. 3d 924.

It is emphasized that although the facial inadmissibility of defendant’s statement
was not considered by this writer, the trial court’s error, by itself, would have been the
basis for ordering a new trial if not for this writer’s agreement with the ultimate result
reached by the majority.

2

to conclude that defendant had placed himself on the ground as Flowers

casually approached him. The forensic evidence concerning the striking of

the bullets and the physical positions of the two principals corroborates the

details of defendant’s testimony relative to the moment of shooting.

Furthermore, the cigarette package and a single cigarette in a separate

location scattered across the ground were independently corroborative of the

second confrontation between defendant and Flowers.

Thus, the objective forensic evidence and the location of other

physical evidence demonstrate that a reasonable doubt exists concerning the

failure to prove that defendant did not act in self-defense.

For these additional reasons, this writer concurs in the original

opinion.

3