State of Louisiana v. Matthew Thomas Conway

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-525

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

MATTHEW THOMAS CONWAY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 162,850
HONORABLE MARK A. JEANSONNE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

PHYLLIS M. KEATY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Billy Howard Ezell, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Charles A. Riddle, III
District Attorney
Post Office Box 1200
Marksville, Louisiana 71351
(318) 253-6587
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana

Mark F. Kelly
Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Box 528
Marksville, Louisiana 71351
(318) 253-5815
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana

Edward Kelly Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 1641
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602-1641
(337) 491-0570
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Matthew Thomas Conway

Matthew Thomas Conway
In Proper Person
Louisiana State Penitentiary
General Delivery
Angola, Louisiana 70712
Defendant

KEATY, Judge.

Defendant, Matthew Thomas Conway, appeals his conviction of second

degree murder. For the following reasons, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In early 2011, Defendant was a habitual drug user and unemployed when he

concocted a plan to rob the victim, Derek Desselle. The plan included a fake drug

deal as a ruse to lure the victim. Defendant and an associate, Thad Moses, met the

victim in the early afternoon. All three men got into a truck and drove to a gravel

road where Defendant shot the victim and took his wallet. When questioned by

police, Defendant admitted to shooting the victim but claimed the victim had tried

to get his gun and punch him.

On July 14, 2011, an Avoyelles Parish grand jury charged Defendant with

second degree murder, a violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. On November 17, 2011, a

jury found Defendant guilty as charged. On January 5, 2012, the trial court

sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment. Defendant now appeals.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Defendant alleges the trial court erred in failing to grant his

challenge for cause regarding alternate juror Roland Dupuy. Defendant further

contends the trial court erred in allowing gruesome crime scene photographs to be

admitted at trial.

ERRORS PATENT

At the sentencing, the trial court stated, “You’ll have two years to apply for

post conviction relief.” Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 930.8

provides that the defendant has two years after the conviction and sentence become

final to seek post-conviction relief. We find that the trial court’s advisement

regarding the time limitation for filing an application for post-conviction relief was

insufficient. As such, this matter will be remanded, and the trial court is directed

to inform Defendant of the provisions of La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8 by sending

written notice to him within ten days of the rendition of this opinion and to file

written proof in the record that Defendant received the notice. See State v. Roe,

05-116 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/05), 903 So.2d 1265, writ denied, 03-1762 (La.

2/10/05), 924 So.2d 163.

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In his first assignment of error, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in

failing to grant his challenge for cause against an alternate juror, Roland Dupuy1

(“Mr. Dupuy”), who knew the victim’s father. As Defendant points out in his brief,

there is no indication that either party received additional peremptory challenges

for selecting alternate jurors as required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 789.

The State points out that Mr. Dupuy did not participate in deliberations. The

fifth circuit has stated:

Defendant used his [lone peremptory challenge] to excuse prospective
[alternate] juror Rosie Foret. Since Foret was ultimately stricken, and
the alternate jurors chosen were dismissed at the start of deliberations,
the trial court’s ruling as to Foret had no effect on the verdict. Absent
a showing of actual prejudice, defendant’s claim fails.

State v. Smith, 05-951, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/06), 934 So.2d 269, 276, writ

denied, 06-2930 (La. 9/28/07), 964 So.2d 357, citing State v. Comeaux, 93-2729

(La. 7/1/97), 699 So.2d 16, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1150 (1998).

The record indicates that the alternates did not participate in deliberations.

Defendant does not claim otherwise but argues that “Mr. Dupuy may have

expressed his interpretation of the evidence before being discharged”; thus, any

error could not be harmless. However, Defendant makes no showing of actual

prejudice. Therefore, this first assignment of error lacks merit.

1
“Dupuy” is the name shown in the transcript. The minutes show “Dupree.”
2

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In his second assignment of error, Defendant argues the trial court erred by

allowing gruesome photographs to be admitted into evidence. The trial court

allowed the State to admit pictures of the victim’s “burned and still smoking

body,” and Defendant argues those pictures were not necessary because they “were

not needed to prove or to identify the victim.” The record shows Defendant

specifically objected to exhibits S-7 and S-39 and also raised a specific objection to

four autopsy pictures, S-55 through S-58.

In State v. Robinson, 02-1869, p. 28 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 66, 85-86, cert.

denied, 543 U.S. 1023 (2004), the supreme court stated:

In his fourteenth assignment of error, defendant contends that
the admission of photographs from the murder scene was more
prejudicial than probative, and therefore violated his right to a fair
trial. We disagree, and find that the trial court’s decision to admit the
crime scene photographs did not violate defendant’s right to a fair trial
because the photographs possessed probative value, and further, the
contents were not so gruesome as to overwhelm the jury and cause
them to convict based on insufficient evidence.

This Court held in State v. Letulier, that even where the cause
of death is not at issue, the State is entitled to the moral force of its
evidence. State v. Letulier, 97-1360, (La.7/8/98), 750 So.2d 784, 795.
Therefore, postmortem photographs of murder victims are admissible
to prove corpus delicti, to corroborate other evidence establishing
cause of death, location, placement of wounds, as well as to provide
positive identification of the victim. Id. In Letulier, the defendant
stabbed an elderly man to death, robbed him of his social security
income, and dumped his body in a local levee. Id. at 787. The State
introduced pictures of the victim during the testimony of his daughter
for identification purposes, as well as during the testimony of Det.
Scott Haydel, a detective with the St. Martin Sheriff’s Office, to
explain the condition of the body when it was found. Id. at 795.
Photographic evidence will be admitted unless it is so gruesome as to
overwhelm the jurors’ reason and lead them to convict the defendant
without sufficient evidence, or, as explained in La. C.E. art. 403, when
the prejudicial effect of the photographs substantially outweighs their
probative value. Id. See also State v. Koon, 96-1208, (La.5/20/97);
704 So.2d 756; State v. Maxie, 93-2158, (La.4/10/95); 653 So.2d 526;
State v. Martin, 93-0285, (La.10/17/94); 645 So.2d 190.

3

On appeal, Defendant indicates exhibits S-7 and S-39 through S-55 are the

ones at issue, but this court finds that some of the photographs covered by that

enumeration are totally benign in the context of the current assignment. For

example, exhibits S-44 through S-49 show details of the crime scene; some include

bloodstains but do not show the corpse. Regarding gruesome photographs, we

note that S-7 shows the victim’s prone body, but it is somewhat obscured by

foliage and smoke. Exhibits S-39 and S-40 are similar to S-7. Exhibit S-41 is

more of a close-up; it shows the corpse from knees to head; the buttocks are

exposed and char marks appear on the skin. However, it does not appear to reveal

any underlying tissue or blood, and since the body is prone, the face cannot be seen.

Exhibit S-42 is a close-up of the left side of the victim’s bare torso and his left

hand. There is no blood, and the body appears merely dirty. Next, exhibit S-43 is

a fairly close view of the victim’s face, which appears to be bloody. Candidly, this

photograph is disturbing, but not so ghastly as would be likely to sway jurors from

reasoned consideration of the offense.

Exhibit S-55 is a close-up of the decedent’s face, but it has clear probative

value, as it shows the entry wound. Further, it is not particularly horrific; the bullet

hole is small and the victim’s face appears to be merely dirty. The next exhibit, S-

56, shows the exit wound in the victim’s back, but it looks no worse than a bad cut.

Again, the back of his head appears to be merely dirty. Exhibit S-57 is more

gruesome; it is more of a close-up and some bloody tissue is retracted to show the

location of the bullet. Nonetheless, all of these photographs were relevant, as they

were used to illustrate the medical testimony regarding cause of death.

The supreme court in Robinson, 874 So.2d at 86, explained:

In State v. Perry, this Court affirmed defendant’s conviction of
five counts of first degree murder where the defendant shot both of his
parents and two cousins, as well as a small child. State v. Perry, 502
4

So.2d 543 (La.1986). In Perry, the defendant argued that the
admission of the photographs was unnecessary as the pathologist who
performed the autopsies testified as to the cause of death, the location
and number of gunshot wounds, the type of weapons used, and the
distance from which the weapon was fired. Perry, 502 So.2d 543, 558.
The victims in Perry were all shot at close range with a shot-gun and
the photographs were quite graphic, however, this Court found that
the trial court did not err in allowing the admission of the photographs
into evidence as the photographs of the murder scenes were relevant
to corroborate the testimony of the State’s witnesses as to the location
of the bodies, the apparent sequence in which the murders occurred,
gunshot wounds sustained by the victims; as well as to impress upon
the individual juror the seriousness of their task. Id. at 559. Therefore,
we found that the admission of “gruesome photographs is not
reversible error unless it is clear that their probative value is
substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect.” Id.

With regard to the case at bar, defendant filed pre-trial motions
to exclude gruesome photographs at the guilt phase and penalty phase
of trial and offered to stipulate as to the victims’ cause of death. On
March 22, 1999, the trial court held a hearing to consider the
admissibility of the state’s crime scene photos. At that hearing, the
State disclosed 63 crime scene photos from which it had culled 13
photos which it sought to introduce during the guilt phase. Of those,
the court ruled that 10 crime scene photos would be admissible, but
the other three were excluded.

There is no dispute that the scene in the small living room at 10
Guy Peart Road on May 28, 1996 was disturbing. Four family
members had been shot in the head and left lying on the floor in pools
of their own blood. The sight of a 10-month old baby in that setting
made the scene even more shocking, however, the photographs were
nevertheless relevant. The State was entitled to demonstrate that the
victims clearly posed no threat to their killer, and that the head
wounds suggested an execution-style killing from which none of the
victims were given the opportunity to defend themselves or escape.
Moreover, the 10 photographs that the trial court approved were not
so graphic as to result in undue prejudice to the defendant. Nothing in
the crime scene photographs admitted is so gruesome as to have
overwhelmed the reason of the jury and lead them to convict without
sufficient other evidence. Defendant’s assignment of error as to
admissibility of the photographs of the crime scene is therefore
without merit.

Viewing the photographs at issue in light of Robinson, we conclude that

Defendant’s second assignment of error lacks merit.

5

DECREE

Defendant’s conviction is affirmed. This matter is remanded, and the trial

court is directed to inform Defendant of the provisions of La.Code Crim.P. art.

930.8 by sending appropriate written notice to Defendant within ten days of the

rendition of this opinion and to file written proof in the record that Defendant

received notice.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

6