State of Louisiana v. Shamichael Antonio Pearson

Judgment rendered January 10, 2023.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,440-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

SHAMICHAEL ANTONIO Appellant
PEARSON

*****

Appealed from the
First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 387,871

Honorable Christopher T. Victory, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Chad Ikerd

JAMES E. STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

SAMUEL S. CRICHTON
TOMMY JAN JOHNSON
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before STONE, ROBINSON, and MARCOTTE, JJ.

STONE, J.

This criminal appeal arises from the First Judicial District Court, the

Honorable Christopher T. Victory presiding. A unanimous jury found

Shamichael Pearson (“defendant”) guilty of second degree murder in

violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. The defendant received a sentence of life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The defendant now appeals his conviction, alleging that the state

failed to sufficiently prove that he committed the murder. For the following

reasons, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 3, 2022, Devin Myers (“Devin”) texted his mother,

Shartarshea Myers (“Shartarshea”), asking if she could pick him up from

school early. Given that Devin’s seventeenth birthday was the day before,

Shartarshea agreed to sign Devin out of school early. Shartarshea picked

Devin up from school and dropped him off at their home on Lakeshore

Drive. Shortly thereafter, Devin decided to visit his best friend, Jaylen

Pennywell (“Jaylen”), at his home on Lillian Street, which is located near

the rear of Devin’s home.

While at Jaylen’s home, Devin’s cell phone battery was low, so he

texted his girlfriend, Jer’miyah Cummings (“Jer’miyah”), to bring his cell

phone charger. Jer’miyah texted Devin upon her arrival at Jaylen’s home.

Devin came outside and then walked to the passenger side of Jer’miyah’s

vehicle. As they were talking, a pedestrian walked by the driver’s side of

her vehicle and came around to the passenger side to address Devin. Devin

and Jer’miyah heard the pedestrian say, “didn’t I tell you when I seen you, I

was going to get you.” Devin attempted to run away from the pedestrian but

was shot thirteen times and killed instantly. The shooter immediately fled

the scene on foot.

When the police arrived on the scene, they learned from Jer’miyah,

the only witness to the murder, that the shooter was “light-skinned with

dreads and possibly had freckles.” Jer’miyah also stated that the shooter was

wearing an off-green or olive-green hoodie and a ski mask. She also

recalled that the shooter’s pistol looked like a glock. Jer’miyah explained

that Devin did not have any weapons on him, nor did he have a chance to

say anything to her or the shooter before being shot. Once questioned,

Jaylen told police that he heard the gunshots and came out of his house to

find Devin lying face down on the ground. However, Jaylen told police that

he did not see the shooter.

During Shartarshea’s initial statements to the responding officers, she

explained that she was at home when she heard the gunshots and that she

immediately looked out the window because they sounded very close.

Shartarshea told officers that while looking out the window, she saw the

defendant entering his residence through the backdoor wearing a brown

jacket pulled over his head, a black shirt, and black pants. She further

explained that she received a call from Jer’miyah explaining that Devin had

been shot. After learning that her son had been shot, she stated that she

immediately ran through her backyard toward Jaylen’s house and found

Devin lying on the ground. Shartarshea mentioned to officers that upon

finding her son, she screamed “Mike,” the defendant’s nickname, because

she was certain that he was the person who shot her son. She expressed to

police that the defendant and a man named Josh had allegedly shot at Devin

during a drive-by shooting and that she had reported the incident a few
2

months earlier. Officers also located another witness, Eric Tramiel (“Eric”),

a guidance counselor at the nearby charter school, who heard the gunshots.

Eric told police that less than two minutes after hearing the gunshots, he

observed an individual walking toward Lakeshore Drive wearing “a black

hoodie with a brown overhang that resembled a sweater.” Eric stated that he

did not see this individual wearing a mask but observed him walk into the

defendant’s home on Lakeshore Drive. At this point in the investigation, the

detectives developed the defendant as a suspect and obtained a search

warrant for the defendant’s home.

During the search of the defendant’s home, detectives recovered a

Glock 17 along with two magazines inside a deep freezer in the kitchen. At

trial, Christopher Madere (“Madere”), a forensic DNA expert from the North

Louisiana Crime Lab, testified that the DNA swabs taken from the trigger of

the Glock 17 contained the DNA of the defendant.1 Furthermore, the

firearms section supervisor of the North Louisiana Crime Lab, Phillip Stout

(“Stout”), testified that the shell casings and projectiles found at the scene of

the crime were fired from the Glock 17 that was found in the freezer at the

defendant’s home. Detectives also seized the defendant’s cell phone along

with an olive green hoodie that matched the description of the hoodie that

Jer’miyah stated that the shooter was wearing. These items were also

introduced into evidence at trial.

1
Madere testified that “the DNA profile from the swabs was consistent with being a
mixture from at least three individuals: [t]wo major contributors and one minor
contributor,” and he determined that the defendant could not be excluded as part of the
major contributor. Madere further explained that for a mixture of two major contributors,
the probability is expressed as a statistical likelihood. In this particular case, Madere
concluded that “... the DNA profile from the major contributors from the swabs was 18.6
million times more likely to be a mixture of DNA from Shamichael Pearson and an
unknown, unrelated individual than a mixture of DNA from two unknown, unrelated
individuals.”
3

During the investigation, Corporal McEntee (“Cpl. McEntee”) was

advised by a colleague that the defendant was employed at the Piggly

Wiggly supermarket. Cpl. McEntee obtained a video from the Piggly

Wiggly that depicted both the defendant and his mother arriving to work at

approximately 6:50 AM and the defendant leaving work at approximately

12:12 PM. Both videos show the defendant in the same clothing described

by Jer’miyah. The manager on duty at the Piggly Wiggly explained to Cpl.

McEntee that their surveillance cameras were approximately seven minutes

fast and that the defendant clocked out closer to 12:05 PM and not 12:12

PM. The defendant’s cell phone activity also revealed that he walked .4111

miles, which is the approximate distance between the Piggly Wiggly and the

crime scene on Lillian Street, around the same time as the homicide.

Detectives also gathered video surveillance footage from a home on Lillian

Street, which shows an individual in a brown hoodie, black pants, and black

shoes around 12:10 PM walking down Lillian Street toward the crime scene.

Shortly after the individual exits the frame, two volleys of gunshots can be

heard in the video. The individual in the home security video footage was

dressed in the same clothing that the defendant wore that day, as evidenced

by the Piggly Wiggly surveillance footage.

On June 22, 2022, a grand jury indicted the defendant for the second

degree murder of Devin Myers, and a jury trial commenced on March 6,

2023. On March 9, 2023, a unanimous jury found the defendant guilty of

second degree murder. On March 16, 2023, the defendant filed a motion for

post-verdict judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. The

defendant was sentenced on March 27, 2023. This appeal followed.

4

DISCUSSION

The defendant argues that the state presented insufficient evidence at

trial to sustain a conviction for second degree murder. Specifically, the

defendant argues that the state failed to prove he was the shooter. He asserts

that Jer’miyah was the only witness who testified to seeing the shooter, and

she could not identify him as the shooter to the police or at trial. He also

argues that every other witness simply heard gunshots or saw a person

walking into the defendant’s home after the shooting. Furthermore, the

defendant maintains that the “activity sensor” on his cell phone did not

exclude the possibility that he was on a completely different street at the

time of the shooting. He further explains that the DNA on the trigger of the

handgun was based on assumptions made by a forensic analyst and is,

therefore, misleading and insignificant. More importantly, the defendant

asserts that even assuming that his DNA was on the gun, the evidence

offered at trial does not prove that he was the actual shooter.

The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a

conviction is whether, 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 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); State v. Ward, 50,872 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/16/16),

209 So. 3d 228, writ denied, 17-0164 (La. 9/22/17), 227 So. 3d 827. 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 factfinder. State v. Ward, supra; State v.
5

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

(La. 11/6/09), 21 So. 3d 297. On appeal, a reviewing court must view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and must presume in

support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could

reasonably deduce from the evidence. Jackson, supra.

The appellate court does not assess the credibility of witnesses or

reweigh evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d 442;

State v. Ward, supra. A reviewing court accords great deference to a jury’s

decision to accept or reject the testimony of a witness in whole or in part.

State v. Ward, supra; State v. Eason, 43,788 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/25/09), 3 So.

3d 685, writ denied, 09-0725 (La. 12/11/09), 23 So. 3d 913. In the absence

of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical

evidence, the testimony of one witness, if believed by the trier of fact, is

sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion. State v. Burd, 40,480

(La. App. 2 Cir. 1/27/06), 921 So. 2d 219, writ denied, 06-1083 (La.

11/9/06), 941 So. 2d 35.

The Jackson standard is applicable in cases involving both direct and

circumstantial evidence. An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of

evidence in such cases must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by

viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When

the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct

evidence and inferred from the circumstances established by that evidence

must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable

doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime.

State v. Sutton, 436 So. 2d 471 (La. 1983); State v. Ward, supra; State v.

Speed, 43,786 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/14/09), 2 So. 3d 582, writ denied, 09-0372
6

(La. 11/06/09), 21 So. 3d 299. To convict a defendant based upon

circumstantial evidence, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be

excluded. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Barakat, 38,419 (La. App. 2 Cir.

6/23/04), 877 So. 2d 223.

“Second degree murder is the killing of a human being when the

offender has a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm.” La. R.S.

14:30.1.

After reviewing the record and viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, we find that the state presented sufficient

evidence at trial for a reasonable jury to convict the defendant of second

degree murder. The jury was shown surveillance footage from the

defendant’s job at the Piggly Wiggly, showing the clothing he wore to work

on the day of the murder. The footage also showed the defendant leaving

work wearing the same clothing several minutes before the shooting.

Detectives were also able to obtain the defendant’s geolocation data, which

revealed that he walked .4111 miles after work — the approximate distance

between the Piggly Wiggly and the crime scene. The jury was presented

with video surveillance footage from a home on Lillian Street, which shows

the defendant walking down Lillian Street toward the crime scene minutes

before the murder. In that same video, you can hear several gunshots shortly

after the defendant exits the frame. The jury heard the testimony of

Jer’miyah, the only witness to the murder, who stated that the shooter was

wearing the same clothes that the defendant was wearing that day. In

addition, Devin’s mother, Shartarshea, testified that she saw the defendant

walk into his home immediately after the shooting in clothes matching the

description of the shooter. This was also corroborated by Eric, who saw
7

someone matching the description of the shooter walking into the

defendant’s home after he heard several gunshots. Moreover, the murder

weapon was found in the defendant’s home inside a deep freezer, and the

trigger contained the defendant’s DNA. A firearms expert from the North

Louisiana Crime Lab also explained to the jury that the shell casings and

projectiles found at the scene of the crime matched the gun that was found in

the deep freezer at the defendant’s home. Detectives also seized the

defendant’s hoodie that matched the description of the hoodie that Jer’miyah

said the shooter was wearing. Therefore, the defendant’s assignment of error

is without merit.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the conviction and sentence of the

defendant is AFFIRMED.

8