State of Louisiana v. D'Andre Jamal Senegal

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-1163

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

D'ANDRE JAMAL SENEGAL

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 56338-L
HONORABLE DURWOOD WAYNE CONQUE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

DAVID KENT SAVOIE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, John E. Conery, and David Kent Savoie, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Peggy J. Sullivan
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 2806
Monroe, LA 71207-2806
(318) 855-6038
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
D'Andre Jamal Senegal

Roger P. Hamilton, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Box 2206
Lafayette, LA 70511
(337) 232-5170
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

D'Andre Jamal Senegal
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, LA 70712-9999
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

SAVOIE, Judge.

The Defendant, D’Andre Senegal, was charged by grand jury indictment

with two counts of first degree murder, violations of La.R.S. 14:30(A)(3), one

count of second degree kidnapping, a violation of La.R.S. 14:44.1, and two counts

of obstruction of justice, violations of La.R.S. 14:130.1(A)(1) and 14:130.1(A)(2).

After a trial by jury, he was convicted as charged and subsequently sentenced to

life imprisonment on each of the first degree murder charges. For second degree

kidnapping, the Defendant was sentenced to ten years at hard labor with the first

two years to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of

sentence. Finally, for the two counts of obstruction of justice, the Defendant was

sentenced to twenty-five years at hard labor on each count. The court ordered that

all sentences run concurrently. The Defendant is before this court appealing his

convictions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented for four of the

five offenses.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for

errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find there

are no errors patent.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The Defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to

support his convictions. Specifically, the Defendant complains that the testimony

of the State’s witnesses, uncorroborated by physical evidence, was contradictory

and thus insufficient.

Amanda Lebon first met the Defendant, known to her as “Dumway,” in

2011 or 2012. In February 2013, she and the Defendant lived together and she was

pregnant with his child. Also living in the home were Amanda’s five year old little

boy, DeMarion, whose father is Dustin Williams, and her one year old little girl,

Mya, who is the Defendant’s child. On February 12, 2013, at about 6:40 a.m., the

Defendant woke Amanda and asked her to take him to Dustin’s house so he could

talk to Dustin about who had slashed his tires. She complied with the Defendant’s

request, and they left the house before 7:00 a.m. with the children. Amanda drove

her black Chevrolet Impala. According to Amanda, the Defendant’s demeanor was

calm.

Amanda dropped the Defendant off in front of Constance Vallien’s (Dustin

Williams’ mother’s) home. (Vallien’s testimony confirmed that the Defendant

visited her home that morning about 7:00 or 7:30 a.m. seeking to ask her son

Dustin if he knew who had slashed the tires on the Defendant’s car. Dustin did not

want to get out of bed, so the Defendant left.) Upon receiving a phone call from

the Defendant some five or six minutes later, Amanda returned to the front of the

home and picked him up. He then asked Amanda to bring him to see Gary (at Kim

Hanks’ house) so he could talk to him about who might have slashed his tires.

According to Amanda, the Defendant was calm when he made this request. They

proceeded to Hanks’ home where Amanda dropped the Defendant off. According

to Amanda, the Defendant knocked on the door and it was opened by Kim Hanks.

Amanda waited in the car with her children. She said that when the Defendant

opened the door to leave, he appeared to be arguing with someone and he had a

black medium-size gun in his hand. Amanda testified he fired the gun twice and

he ran off the porch. She let off her brakes like she was going to pull off, and the

Defendant “kind of picked up the gun a little bit,” and she did not know if he was

going to shoot, so she stayed there and let him get in the car. The Defendant told

2

Amanda he would kill her and DeMarion if she did not take him where he wanted

to go. Threatened and scared, Amanda drove the Defendant to Gross Isle Road

which goes into a cane field. It was muddy out there at the time. The Defendant

got out of the car and ran around a hill and into the woods. Amanda sat in the car

trying to think of how she could get away without her or her children getting hurt.

She said a thousand things ran through her mind and she thought about calling her

grandmother or the cops. She said she thought about backing all the way down the

road, but it was about a mile long and she thought she “probably would have hit

the ditch just because of [her] being scared.” While she was sitting in the car

thinking about what to do, the Defendant returned to the car without the gun. He

told Amanda to drive him toward Lafayette, but she told him she did not have any

gas. He responded that he would give her $10.00.

When they left Grosse Isle Road, Amanda asked the Defendant about Gary

and the Defendant told her the last time he saw him, he was just “laying there.”

When Amanda started to cry, the Defendant “slapped [her] or whatever,” giving

her a black eye.1 Amanda proceeded the “back way” toward Lafayette, stopping at

a Chevron station to put gas in her car, something the Defendant told her to do.

Amanda paid for the gas inside the store. She testified that she was too scared to

say anything and “was just thinking [she] need[ed] to find a way to get away from

him” and if she took too long in the store he would come. She testified that she felt

she had to do what he said because she was threatened by him. They were at the

Chevron station for about ten minutes. From there, the Defendant told her to take

him to Lady of Lourdes so he could clean the mud off his shoes. Amanda testified

1
Lieutenant David Hardy of the Abbeville Police Department interviewed Amanda on the
12th and again on the 14th. He said he first noticed her black eye when he interviewed her on the
14th.

3

that she knew that was her chance to get away from the Defendant. When the

Defendant went into the hospital, Amanda drove off. She then called the

Defendant’s mother and told her that she did not know whether the Defendant

killed anyone, but he fired a gun, and she was going to call the police. 2 Amanda

then called her grandmother and drove to her house. When Amanda arrived at her

grandmother’s house, her father and the police were there. Amanda testified that

by the time she got to her grandmother’s house, the Defendant was already calling

her phone asking why all the cops were at her grandmother’s house. Amanda

testified that the Defendant had called a couple of other times and, when she did

not answer, he left messages saying he was going to kill her. The conversations

Amanda did have with the Defendant were over the speakerphone. When asked if

any of the conversations caused her concern, Amanda testified that she was

concerned because the Defendant was in the area she was in. When asked if he

threatened her, Amanda replied, “[h]e just kept saying, I thought you loved me.

Why would you do this? Why would you call the cops on me?” When asked what

it was she found threatening, Amanda replied, “[t]hat he said he was going to kill

me.”

Amanda was escorted from her grandmother’s house to the Abbeville Police

Department. From there, she took law enforcement to the place she had previously

taken the Defendant to hide the gun. Amanda identified the Defendant in a lineup

and later in court.

On cross-examination, Amanda testified she became involved in a sexual

relationship with the Defendant when he was sixteen and she was twenty-four.

Prior to her relationship with the Defendant, Amanda hung out with Gary and his

2
On cross-examination, Amanda testified she asked her grandmother to call the police.

4

friends and that is how she met the Defendant. Amanda testified she and Gary

were good friends. However, Amanda testified in July of 2012, she wrote the

Defendant a letter in which she expressed anger with Gary because he had

allegedly said some bad things about her. In the letter, Amanda told the Defendant

that he did not need to be friends with “these people” anymore and that they were a

bad influence on him. Amanda said she wanted to distance both herself and the

Defendant from these people “to better both of our lives.” However, she insisted

she would never do anything to hurt them. The Defendant did not want to stop

hanging out with “them” so he and Amanda continued to hang out with them, and

Amanda continued her relationship with the Defendant.

Amanda testified that prior to the day in question, she and the Defendant had

discussed who they thought slashed the Defendant’s tires. Amanda mentioned it

could be Dustin, the father of one of her children. She also suggested it could be

Gary. According to Amanda, she and the Defendant were not on good terms

around the time of the incident. The night before the incident was one of the first

nights the Defendant had stayed at Amanda’s house because they had been “off

and on.” According to Amanda, the two had a disagreement about what happened

when they were not together and he beat her up “all in [her] ribs and [her] chest.”

When asked why she allowed the Defendant to stay after beating her up, Amanda

replied that she had no control over him and if she called the police something

worse would have happened. The next morning he woke her up and according to

Amanda, “[she was] already terrified.” Amanda also testified on cross

examination that she could have left the Defendant at Gary’s, but she chose not to

leave. She also explained that one of the reasons she did not want to leave when

the Defendant went to hide the gun was that she was worried she would go in the

5

ditch. She also said he could have heard her if she backed up and he still had the

gun. According to Amanda, she was too scared to move and get shot at. She also

had a cell phone but did not call anyone during the seven minutes he was gone

from the car. When asked why she did not call 911, she explained that they could

have called her cell phone back by the time he got in the car and because of her

history of domestic abuse with the Defendant, she was scared. Amanda also

confirmed she did not ask for help when she went inside the gas station to pay for

the gas. She explained that she thought about saying something to the cashier, but

she was worried if she took too long, the Defendant might “think something.” She

also said she was worried about the safety of her children since they were in the car

with the Defendant.

Hahn Hanks testified that on February 12, 2013, she had been dating

Michael Guidry, the father of her child, for six months. Her sister Kim dated

Michael’s brother, Gary Guidry, Jr., and it was his birthday. Hahn testified she

was awakened around 7:30 a.m. by banging on Kim’s bedroom door. Hahn and

Michael were on Hahn’s bed in the living room. Hahn heard Gary say, “who is

it?” and she heard “him” say it was Dumway. She heard the door drag on the

floor, heard arguing, and then heard Gary say, “I’m not scared.” She then heard

two gunshots. She got up and heard shouting. Michael was getting up pulling up

his pants, and Dumway was walking out of the room. When Dumway saw

Michael (T-Mike), he “grabbed [the gun] out” and T-Mike said “why did you do

that? I’m going to get you.” When T-Mike said this, he was sitting on the bed.

Dumway aimed the gun at him, and Hahn ran into the other room to meet her

nephew, Jaylen. T-Mike told the Defendant, “don’t do it, Dumway, don’t do it,”

and Hahn heard two shots fired. When Hahn heard the door shut, she called 911.

6

She then looked out the bedroom window and saw Amanda’s black car and saw

the driver door open and close. Like Amanda, Hahn identified the Defendant in a

photo lineup at the police station as well as in the courtroom.

Hahn’s sister Kim testified that, at the time of the incident, she was engaged

to Gary, and they had a two month old baby, Josiah. On the morning of the

murders, Kim awoke at 6:30 a.m. and fed the baby a bottle. About thirty minutes

to an hour later, she put Josiah in his bassinet which was on her side of the bed.

Kim then tried to go back to sleep but did not succeed because the door of the

room was pushed open by the Defendant. He said Gary had flattened his tires, and

he knew it because the neighbors and Amanda had told him it was Gary. During

the conversation, the Defendant was standing at the foot of their bed swaying from

side to side and his attention was on Gary. According to Kim, the Defendant did

not pay attention to her when she tried to reason with him. Gary sat up in bed

when he talked to the Defendant but did not get out of the bed and did not have a

weapon nearby. Kim testified that Gary asked the Defendant why he threatened

him instead of questioning him about the tires. The Defendant replied, “I know it

was you,” and he pulled a black handgun out of his pants. Gary said, “I’m not

afraid of the,” but before he could say “gun,” the Defendant shot him twice. The

Defendant left the room, and Kim then heard Michael saying “don’t do it,” and the

Defendant said, “bitch, I’ll kill you and your son.” He then shot Michael twice.

Kim testified she saw the Defendant driving the car away from the scene.

According to Kim, she did not see nor hear anyone else with the Defendant in the

house. Like Amanda and Hahn, Kim identified the Defendant both in a

photographic lineup and in the courtroom. On cross-examination, both Kim and

Hahn denied answering the door and letting the Defendant in the house.

7

The Defendant was apprehended by authorities a short time after he ran out

from underneath his grandfather’s house where he had been hiding, and the gun

was recovered at the location shown to them by Amanda. Several law enforcement

officers testified at trial, but none of them testified that they listened to Amanda’s

voicemail messages in which she claimed the Defendant threatened to kill her.

Lieutenant Hardy of the Abbeville Police Department testified he took Amanda’s

black Impala from her on the 14th [February, 2013] and inspected it. The only

thing he observed that may have pertained to the investigation was mud on the

passenger-side floorboard. Dr. Christopher Tape of the Louisiana Forensic Center

determined the cause of death of both victims to be a gunshot wound to the head.

First Degree Murder

In his argument regarding the insufficiency of the evidence to prove the

murders, the Defendant points to internal inconsistencies in Amanda Lebon’s

testimony as well as inconsistencies between her testimony and the testimony of

the Hanks sisters. Specifically, he notes that Amanda testified she was good

friends with Gary, but then testified that she tried to persuade the Defendant to stay

away from Gary and his friends. He then focuses on Amanda’s testimony that the

Defendant exited and re-entered the passenger door of the car at the Hanks’ house

whereas Hahn Hanks testified when she looked out she saw the driver door

shutting and Kim Hanks testified she did not see anyone get back into the car and

she could not see anyone else in the car. Finally, the Defendant notes the differing

testimony as to whether Kim Hanks answered the door when the Defendant arrived

at the Hanks’ residence.

The supreme court has discussed the standard for reviewing
sufficiency of the evidence claims:

8

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, 319, 99 S.Ct.
2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Mussall, 523
So.2d 1305 (La.1988). A determination of the weight of
evidence is a question of fact, resting solely with the trier
of fact who may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the
testimony of any witnesses. State v. Silman, 95-0154
(La. 11/27/95), 663 So.2d 27, 35. A reviewing court may
impinge on the factfinding function of the jury only to
the extent necessary to assure the Jackson standard of
review. State v. Bordenave, 95-2328 (La. 4/26/96), 678
So.2d 19, 20. It is not the function of an appellate court to
assess credibility or re-weigh the evidence. Id.

State v. Macon, 06-481, pp. 7-8 (La. 6/1/07), 957 So.2d 1280, 1285-
86.

Louisiana courts have previously discussed the extent to which
a reviewing court may question credibility determinations made by
the fact finder. “It is not the function of an appellate court to assess
credibility. . . .” Id. at 1286. “The actual trier of fact’s rational
credibility calls . . . are preserved through the requirement that upon
judicial review all of the evidence is to be considered as if by a
rational fact finder in the light most favorable to the prosecution. . .
.” Mussall, 523 So.2d at 1311 (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct.
2781). “[T]he actual fact finder’s discretion will be impinged upon
only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection
of due process of law.” Id. at 1310 (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. 307, 99
S.Ct. 2781). “In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable
conflicts with physical evidence, the testimony of one witness, if
believed by the court, is sufficient to support a conviction or
convictions.” State v. Stec, 99-633, pp. 4-5 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/30/99),
749 So.2d 784, 787.

State v. H.L.J., 08-1070, p. 16 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/1/09), 6 So.3d 997, 1006-07.

The inconsistencies in testimony pointed out by the Defense in this

assignment of error are a matter of credibility, which is in the purview of the fact

finder. The jury’s verdict indicates it viewed any inconsistency in the witnesses’

9

testimonies as insignificant to their overall credibility. We will not disturb the

credibility determination made by the jury. The Defendant’s claim has no merit.

Second Degree Kidnapping

The Defendant focuses on the facts that indicate that Amanda, who was

driving the car, did not do anything to try to get away from the Defendant at

Grosse Isle Road or at the gas station despite the fact she had the opportunity.

According to the Defendant, Amanda was trying to “extricate herself from her own

culpability.”

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:44.1 provides in pertinent part:

A. Second degree kidnapping is the doing of any of the acts
listed in Subsection B wherein the victim is:

(1) Used as a shield or hostage;

(2) Used to facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight
after an attempt to commit or the commission of a felony;

(3) Physically injured or sexually abused;

(4) Imprisoned or kidnapped for seventy-two or more hours,
except as provided in R.S. 14:45(A)(4) or (5); or

(5) Imprisoned or kidnapped when the offender is armed with a
dangerous weapon or leads the victim to reasonably believe he
is armed with a dangerous weapon.

B. For purposes of this Section, kidnapping is:

(1) The forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one
place to another; or

(2) The enticing or persuading of any person to go from one
place to another; or

(3) The imprisoning or forcible secreting of any person.

10

The evidence established that, upon leaving the Hanks’ residence after

having shot Gary and Michael, the Defendant, who was armed, told Amanda he

would kill her and her child DeMarion if she did not take him where he wanted to

go. Threatened and scared, Amanda drove the Defendant to Grosse Isle Road.

Then, when driving from Grosse Isle Road to Lafayette, although no longer armed,

the Defendant slapped Amanda in the face, giving her a black eye. The jury

clearly found Amanda’s testimony to be credible regarding the kidnapping and her

testimony established the elements of second degree kidnapping beyond a

reasonable doubt. Therefore, this claim is without merit.

Obstruction of Justice

The Defendant challenges only Count 5 of obstruction of justice concerning

the threats made by the Defendant to Amanda Lebon. Although Amanda testified

that the Defendant left messages in which he threatened to kill her, his contention

on appeal is that no one else heard these messages and further, that it was not

proven that these messages were made with the “intent to influence her in

providing testimony or evidence.” In other words, there was no “or else”

component to the threats, meaning the evidence presented to prove the offense of

obstruction of justice was lacking. This claim has no merit.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:130.1(A)(2) provides:

A. The crime of obstruction of justice is any of the following
when committed with the knowledge that such act has, reasonably
may, or will affect an actual or potential present, past, or future
criminal proceeding as hereinafter described:

(2) Using or threatening force toward the person or property of
another with the specific intent to:

(a) Influence the testimony of any person in any
criminal proceeding;

11

(b) Cause or induce the withholding of testimony
or withholding of records, documents, or other objects
from any criminal proceeding;

(c) Cause or induce the alteration, destruction,
mutilation, or concealment of any object with the specific
intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for
use in any criminal proceeding;

(d) Evade legal process or the summoning of a
person to appear as a witness or to produce a record,
document, or other object in any criminal proceeding;

(e) Cause the hindrance, delay, or prevention of the
communication to a peace officer, as defined in R.S.
14:30, of information relating to an arrest or potential
arrest or relating to the commission or possible
commission of a crime or parole or probation violation.

Count 5 of the indictment charged the Defendant in pertinent part as follows:

[The Defendant] did intentionally use or threaten force toward the
person or property of another with the specific intent to influence the
testimony of any person in any criminal proceeding and cause or
induce the alteration, destruction, mutilation, or concealment of any
object with the specific intent to impair the object’s integrity or
availability for use in any criminal proceeding; in violation of the
provisions of LSA-R.S. 14:130.1(A)(2).

The State argues on appeal that the Defendant’s threat to kill Amanda if she

did not take him where he wanted to go (which was a place to hide the gun he had

used in the murders) was sufficient to prove the obstruction of justice charge.

Additionally, the State points out that the messages the Defendant left (wherein he

tells Amanda he was going to kill her and asks why she called the cops on him)

was sufficient to sustain this conviction.

Notwithstanding the argument that the evidence was not sufficient to prove

that the Defendant’s threats were made with the specific intent to influence her

testimony under La.R.S. 14:130.1(A)(2), it was sufficient to show that they were

made with the specific intent to cause or induce the concealment of the gun with

12

the specific intent to impair its availability for use in the criminal proceeding in

accordance with La.R.S. 14:130.1(A)(2)(c). As such, this claim has no merit.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s convictions and sentences are

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform
Rules—Courts of Appeal. Rule 2–16.3.

13