State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel D. Campbell

Judgment rendered August 28, 2024.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 55,797-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

NATHANIEL D. CAMPBELL Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the
Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 22-CR-32461

Honorable Nicholas E. Gasper, Judge

*****

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant
By: Paula C. Marx

CHARLES B. ADAMS Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

RHYS E. BURGESS
NANCY F. BERGER-SCHNEIDER
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before PITMAN, STONE, and THOMPSON, JJ.

PITMAN, C. J.

Defendant Nathaniel D. Campbell appeals his conviction and sentence

for violating La. R.S. 14:94(A) and (F), illegal use of weapons or dangerous

instrumentalities during a crime of violence. For the following reasons, the

conviction and sentence are affirmed.

FACTS

Defendant was charged with violating La. R.S. 14.94(A) and (F),

illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities during a crime of

violence, during an aggravated assault on Tyrek Price. The crime occurred

on March 26, 2022, in DeSoto Parish. He was found guilty by a unanimous

jury and sentenced to ten years at hard labor without benefits.

At trial, the following evidence was adduced:

Abdo Mohmad, owner of the Quik Snax gas station in Mansfield,

Louisiana, testified that on the night of March 26, 2022, an altercation

occurred on his premises. He stated he was not at the store at the time of the

shooting but identified the shooting location from his store’s video

surveillance footage. He also stated that his son was working there at the

time of the incident and called the police.

Patrol Sergeant Christopher Johnson of the Mansfield Police

Department testified that he was on duty when a call came in around 11 p.m.

that shots had been fired near Quik Snax. He and Ofc. Dakota Calhoun, also

of the Mansfield Police Department, responded and noticed there were

people arguing and fighting. He entered the store, and the clerk told him a

shooting had occurred. He stated that the clerk was Abdo Mohmad, a/k/a

“Papa.”

Mohmad informed the officers that he had surveillance tape and

offered it to them. They rewound the video approximately ten minutes and

were able to identify a black truck from which the shots had been fired.

While they were still on-site, another person came into the store and reported

that his vehicle had been struck by a black truck.

The video was played in court and Sgt. Johnson narrated the footage.

In the video, Defendant arrived in a black Dodge truck. Ofc. Johnson stated

that Defendant, his girlfriend Toriana Woods, and her mother Gloria Woods,

left the Quik Snax with their purchases. The women got in the truck, but

Defendant had to work on the truck to get it started before they left the

premises.

Sgt. Johnson stated that Price, the victim, was seen dancing and

jumping around holding what he calls “a serious looking weapon.” A few

minutes later, Defendant’s truck returned to Quik Snax with Gloria driving.

He stated that as the truck entered the parking lot, he could see Defendant

hanging out of the passenger side window with his hands on top of the truck

holding a gun. Gloria immediately got out of the truck, and Defendant

remained in the passenger window with both arms extended over the top of

the cab of the truck. He then jumped out of the window while still holding

the firearm. Both women and Defendant got out of the truck.

Sgt. Johnson further testified that Defendant pointed the gun at

someone (a female) and then both women and Defendant returned to the

truck. Price is not seen in the video at this point, but subsequently appears

with a firearm in his hand pointed toward the black truck. Defendant and the

two women returned to the truck; and, as it began to roll away, the back

windshield was blown out by a firearm, and glass was “flying everywhere.”
2

Bullets were fired, and Gloria opened the driver’s side door and began to

crawl away. The black truck hit a vehicle on the side of the building, and

Price ran toward Washington St. in the O’Reilly area.

Sgt. Johnson stated that after speaking to Mohmad, he knew from

Mohmad’s descriptions the identity of the owner of the truck and where

Gloria lived. They went to her house on Susan Street and found the black

truck with the back window shot out.

Ofc. Calhoun testified that he secured the scene at the Quik Snax and

found two bullet holes in one of the gas pumps. He found a .22 caliber

bullet/brass lying on the side, which he was told was unrelated to the

incident. He went to Gloria’s house on Susan Street and detained Defendant

and took him to the police station for questioning.

David Self, chief detective for the Mansfield Police Department, went

to the Susan address with Ofc. Calhoun. He testified that he located the

truck at that address and noted that the glass at the back of the truck had

been shot from inside and that 95% of the glass was in the bed of the truck.

He also testified that he located a 9mm shell casing on the dashboard as well

as on the seat of the truck. Seven more shell casings were found in the bed

of the truck, but the evidence bag contained eight.

Det. Self stated that Defendant admitted to being involved in the

shooting and told him that his Ruger 9mm used in the shooting was on his

nightstand inside and that he had fired his weapon five to eight times. After

consent to search was given, the firearm, magazine and 13 9mm live rounds

were secured; these were introduced in evidence at trial. Defendant gave a

statement of the incident at the Quik Snax, but when Det. Self viewed the

surveillance video, Defendant’s story was not corroborated. Defendant
3

failed to tell him that he had left the store and then returned with a firearm.

Det. Self stated that he returned to the store and searched the parking lot and

found bullet fragments in the area where the black truck had been located

and where Defendant fired out of the window. He also located .223 caliber

shell casings in the parking lot next door to the Quik Snax, behind an oil

change business, and these were compatible with Price’s firearm. The

surveillance footage does not cover that location during the shooting.

Tyrek Price testified that he knew Defendant and that they were on

friendly terms. He did not know Gloria or Toriana Woods. He stated that he

had a gun but was not pointing it at anyone. He also stated that he did not

see Defendant until he came out of the store, at which time he spoke to

Defendant, who did not respond. After his cousin asked him if he had any

problems with Defendant, he turned around and saw Defendant pointing a

gun in his face. He attempted to reach his car and leave, but Gloria was

pushing and holding him. He stated that Gloria finally let him go and went

back to the black truck. He testified that he grabbed his gun from the back

seat of his car and aimed it at the truck, but only because he could see

Defendant pointing his gun at him from the truck. He claimed after he

aimed his gun at Defendant, Defendant began shooting. He put his own gun

down and began running, and a bullet flew by very close to his head. He

testified that he ran and hid on the side of the oil change business and then

ran back to his car and left. He testified that he never fired a shot. Despite

this statement, he pled guilty to illegal use of weapons and dangerous

instrumentalities. The state rested.

Gloria Woods testified that she, her daughter Toriana, and Defendant

went to Quik Snax. When they arrived the first time, they saw Price waving
4

a gun around. They left but had to return because Toriana had lost her credit

card and ID. She stated that she was driving the truck when they returned to

the store, that she got out of the car and approached Price to talk to him. She

asked him why he kept “pulling guns” and said she hugged him. She also

stated that while she was out of the truck, Defendant had also gotten out and

there were people there with guns pointing at each other. She testified that

she got back in the driver’s seat, her daughter was in the middle and

Defendant was in the passenger seat. She began to hear gunfire and got out

of the truck to hide behind a gas pump but then returned and drove to her

home. She stated that as they were leaving, Price was aiming a gun at them,

and the shooting started after that. Defendant was still armed when they left

the Quik Snax, and the back window of the truck had been shot out. She

stated that Defendant’s gun was a 9mm and that it was found at her home.

Toriana Woods testified that they went to the Quik Snax twice. The

first time there they saw Price outside with a firearm. The second time they

returned, Gloria drove to the store, and she (Toriana) got out to look for her

belongings. When she got back to the truck, she saw Price with a rifle raised

to his shoulder and aiming at the back of the truck. There were guns

everywhere, and she was scared, so she got on the floor of the truck before

the shooting started. She did not know who fired first.

Defendant testified that the first time they were at the store, the truck

would not start. He stated that Price came up to him and said something

unfriendly. He was able to get the truck started and leave; but before he left,

he saw Price with an “assault rifle” in his hand dancing and waving it

around.

5

Defendant stated they had to return to the store. He was agitated and

hanging out of the window with a gun over the top of the cab. He testified

that he, Gloria and Toriana got out and approached Price while the truck was

still running. He confronted Price while aiming the 9mm gun at him but

admitted that Price was not armed at the time. He testified that Price’s

brother, Devonte, was standing beside Price holding a gun. Price snatched

Devonte’s gun out of his hand and aimed it at “all of them.” Devonte

snatched the gun back from Price and that gun was not fired. Defendant

claims he was trying to defuse the situation, but Devonte was mad and

agitated and wanted to know what was going on. He told Devonte nothing

was going on and that they were getting ready to leave. He waved his hand

at them to indicate that the altercation was over, but he kept the gun in his

hand the whole time.

Defendant further testified that he, Gloria and Toriana were back in

the truck intending to leave when he saw Price aiming a gun at them. He

heard shots and that is when he shot through the back window of the truck

eight times. He stated that Price did not have his own gun until after the

three of them were leaving the parking lot.

The jury instructions included an explanation of self-defense and the

justifiable use of force or violence against a person for the purpose of

preventing a forcible offense against one’s own person if the use of force is

reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent the offense. The jury was

also instructed that a person who is an aggressor or who brings on a

difficulty cannot claim the right to self-defense unless he withdraws from the

conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or

should know that he desires to withdraw.
6

The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged of illegal use of a

firearm during a crime of violence. A presentence investigation was

ordered, and Defendant was sentenced to the minimum sentence of ten years

at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence.

Defendant appeals his conviction on the basis that the state failed to prove

that he did not act in self-defense and on the insufficiency of the evidence.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues the two assignments of error together. He does not

dispute that his actions arguably fit the definition of illegal use of a weapon

by discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. However, he contends

that his actions were taken in self-defense and in defense of his family; thus,

he is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted.

Defendant reiterated the facts of his testimony and claimed that while

he was talking to Price, Price grabbed his brother’s gun away from him and

was pointing it at Defendant and the women. Devonte recovered his gun,

and Defendant claimed he considered the altercation over and waved his

hand to indicate that they were leaving. He argues that when he saw Price

retrieve his own “assault rifle” from the back seat of his car and aim it at

them as they were leaving, he was afraid for his life and that of his family,

and he shot out the back window of the truck eight times. He asserts that he

was no longer the aggressor when he was in the truck leaving the scene and

that he shot because he saw Price aiming the gun at them.

For these reasons, Defendant argues that the evidence presented at

trial was insufficient to support a conviction for the crime and that the claim

of self-defense was warranted.

7

The state contends that the evidence was sufficient to convict

Defendant of the crime of which he was accused and that it is clear

Defendant was the aggressor in the situation. He returned to the scene

hanging out of a window of the truck with a gun pointing at the victim. The

state argues that it is clear this aggravated assault was not self-defense.

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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,

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

55,312 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/15/23), 374 So. 3d 354. See also La. C. Cr. P.

art. 821. 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

62 (2000). The appellate court does not assess credibility or reweigh the

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

A person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot

claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good

faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he

desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict. La. R.S. 14:21; State v.

Jackson, supra.

The issue of self-defense requires a dual inquiry, an objective inquiry

into whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances and a

subjective inquiry into whether the force was apparently necessary. State v.

Jackson, 51,841 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/18), 246 So. 3d 646, writ denied,

18-0284 (La. 11/14/18), 256 So. 3d 284. The standard of proof when a
8

defendant claims self-defense in a non-homicide case is a preponderance of

the evidence. Id. In some cases, this and other courts have also required

that the state must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant

did not act in self-defense. Id., citing State v. Williams, 50,004 (La. App.

2 Cir. 9/30/15), 178 So. 3d 1051.

Not every act of a defendant will make him or her an aggressor. State

v. McGee, 51,977 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/3/19), 316 So. 3d 1196, writ denied,

19-00761 (La. 11/19/19), 282 So. 3d 1066. It is the character of the act

coupled with the intent of the defendant that determines whether the

defendant is the aggressor. Id.

La. R.S. 14:94 states in pertinent part as follows:

A. Illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities is the
intentional or criminally negligent discharging of any firearm,
or the throwing, placing, or other use of any article, liquid, or
substance, where it is foreseeable that it may result in death or
great bodily harm to a human being.
***
F. Whoever commits the crime of illegal use of weapons or dangerous
instrumentalities by discharging a firearm while committing,
attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or soliciting, coercing, or
intimidating another person to commit a crime of violence or violation
of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law, shall be
imprisoned at hard labor for not less then ten years nor more than
twenty years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of
sentence.

In order to prove illegal use of weapons, the state must prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) intentionally or in a criminally

negligent manner discharged a firearm, and (2) that he did so when it was

foreseeable that death or great bodily harm to a person might result. State v.

Brown, 47,174 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/20/12), 93 So. 3d 873, writ denied,

12-1661 (La. 2/8/13), 108 So. 3d 78.

9

The evidence of the video, combined with the testimony of the

witnesses, is sufficient to show that the state has proven beyond a reasonable

doubt every element of the crime of illegal use of weapons or dangerous

instrumentalities, a violation of both La. R.S. 14:94 (A) and (F). The state

has also met its burden of proof that Defendant was not acting in self-

defense when he returned to the Quik Snax, hanging out of the truck window

while pointing a gun over the cab as it entered the parking lot. Further, the

Defendant’s own testimony confirmed that the victim was not armed at the

time he confronted him, that Price’s brother had already taken his gun away

from him, and that it was not until Defendant returned to the truck and was

pointing the gun at him that Price was able to retrieve his rifle from the back

seat of his car. Defendant fired on him through the back window of the

truck as he and the two women drove away. These are the acts of an

aggressor, and he did not withdraw from the conflict in good faith and in

such a manner that his adversary knew or should have known that he desired

to withdraw and discontinue the conflict.

For these reasons, the assignments of error are without merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence of Defendant

Nathaniel D. Campell are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

10