State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Jerome Guillory

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

16-237

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JONATHAN JEROME GUILLORY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 12616-14
HONORABLE CLAYTON DAVIS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX
CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Jimmie C. Peters, and
Billy Howard Ezell, Judges.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

John Foster DeRosier
District Attorney – 14th Judicial District
Karen C. McLellan
Assistant District Attorney – 14th Judicial District
P. O. Box 3206
Lake Charles, LA 70602-3206
Telephone: (337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiff/Appellee - State of Louisiana

Edward Kelly Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 1641
Lake Charles, LA 70602-1641
Telephone: (337) 491-0570
COUNSEL FOR:
Defendant/Appellant - Jonathan Jerome Guillory

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

Defendant Jonathan Jerome Guillory appeals his conviction of second

degree murder. Mr. Guillory was charged with the second degree murder of Felton

Paul Boutte in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. A jury found Mr. Guillory guilty as

charged, following which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the

benefit of suspension of sentence, probation, or parole. Mr. Guillory has perfected

a timely appeal, wherein he alleges insufficient evidence to find him guilty of

second degree murder, that the trial court erred when it denied two of his

peremptory challenges for cause, and granted the State’s Batson challenge. For the

following reasons, we affirm and remand with instructions.

I.

ISSUES

We must determine:

1. whether the trail court erred in finding Mr.
Guillory guilty of second degree murder;

2. whether the trial court erred in denying Mr.
Guillory’s challenges for cause; and

3. whether the trial court erred in granting the State’s
Batson challenge regarding potential jurors.

II.

FACTS

Jonathan Guillory was dating Tanaga Gaines and the two had a young

daughter together named Gynesis. Lashonda Boutte and the deceased, Felton Paul

Boutte, had been married for twenty-four years. They had three children: Tanaga

Gaines, Mrs. Boutte’s child by her first husband, and Javon and Deaunte Boutte.

Mrs. Boutte testified that she and her husband took care of Gynesis as much as

they could because they were concerned about Mr. Guillory’s lifestyle and drug

use. On February 6, 2014, following a series of heated text message exchanges,

Mr. Boutte went to Mr. Guillory and Ms. Gaines’ home and confronted Mr.

Guillory with concerns about his parenting. The argument became physical.

Following an exchange of blows, Mr. Guillory left the living room where the fight

had broken out, went to the hallway to retrieve a gun, and returned to the living

room where he shot Mr. Boutte three times.

Mr. Guillory was found guilty of second degree murder pursuant to

La.R.S. 14:30.1. Mr. Guillory contends that the evidence was insufficient to

establish specific intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm to Mr. Boutte.

Furthermore, Mr. Guillory argues that the trial court erred when it denied two of

his peremptory challenges for cause and granted the State’s Batson challenge.

III.

ERRORS PATENT

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

by the court for errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record,

we find there is one error patent.

The record does not indicate that the trial court advised Mr. Guillory

of the prescriptive period for filing post-conviction relief as required by La.Code

Crim.P. art. 930.8(C). Thus, we find the trial court should be directed to inform

Mr. Guillory of the provisions of Article 930.8(C) by sending appropriate written

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

proof that Mr. Guillory received the notice in the record of the proceedings. State

2

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

2/10/06), 924 So.2d 163.

IV.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Second Degree Murder

When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the

critical inquiry of the reviewing court 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 (1979).

Mr. Guillory argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the

verdict of second degree murder pursuant to Jackson, 443 U.S. 307. Specifically,

he contends that the State failed to show specific intent to kill Mr. Boutte. He

argues that the evidence only supports a conviction for manslaughter, which is a

lesser and included offense of second degree murder.

“Second degree murder is the killing of a human being . . . [w]hen the

offender has the specific intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm.” La.R.S.

14:30.1(A)(1). “Specific intent need not be proven as a fact and may be inferred

from the circumstances present and the actions of the defendant.” State v. Shanks,

97-1885, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/29/98), 715 So.2d 157, 159 (citing State v.

Wisinger, 618 So.2d 923, 931 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 625 So.2d 1063

(La.1993)). Furthermore, “[s]pecific intent is a legal conclusion to be resolved

ultimately by the trier of fact.” Id. (citing State v. Lewis, 525 So.2d 215, 217

(La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 531 So.2d 469 (La.1988)).

3

Manslaughter is defined 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[.]

La.R.S. 14:31(A)(1). “‘Sudden passion’ and ‘heat of blood’ are not elements of

the offense of manslaughter; rather, they are mitigat[ing] factors in the nature of a

defense which exhibit a degree of culpability less than that present when the

homicide is committed without them.” State v. Lombard, 486 So.2d 106, 110

(La.1986). A defendant who shows by a preponderance of the evidence that these

mitigating factors are present is entitled to the verdict of manslaughter. Id.

Mr. Guillory argues that he acted on impulse and that the

circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Boutte indicate that the offense was

committed in sudden passion or the heat of blood immediately caused by

provocation sufficient to deprive a man of his self-control and cool reflection. Mr.

Guillory and Mr. Boutte had been arguing throughout the day through text

messages until Mr. Boutte arrived at Mr. Guillory’s trailer wherein a physical

confrontation ensued. While the testimony establishes that there was a fist fight,

the circumstances were not nearly volatile enough to warrant a reduction of the

charge of second degree murder to manslaughter. The fist fight had already

terminated before the shooting occurred. Additionally, an argument alone is not

“sufficient provocation in order to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter.” State

v. Miller, 98-642, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/28/98), 720 So.2d 829, 834, writ denied,

4

98-3119 (La. 5/14/99), 741 So.2d 659. Family members were attempting to calm

and separate the two men. Furthermore, Mr. Guillory walked away from Mr.

Boutte and retrieved a gun from his bedroom or a box in the hallway, and then

walked back into the living room. Following the shooting, Mr. Guillory appeared

calm and stood talking to people until the police arrived. He did not exhibit the

behavior of someone who had just shot his girlfriend’s stepfather in sudden passion

or heat of blood. During the police interrogation, Mr. Guillory detailed how Mr.

Boutte attacked him and kicked him when he was down, but there was no evidence

of such an attack.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence

was insufficient for the jury to infer the mitigating factors for heat of blood or

sudden passion. Aiming a gun directly at a victim and pulling the trigger supports

a finding of specific intent to kill or inflict serious harm to the victim. State v.

Lawson, 08-123 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/12/08), 1 So.3d 516. Here, Mr. Guillory

pointedly left the room, returned with a gun, and shot Mr. Boutte three times,

apparently while Mr. Boutte was attempting to flee. The Calcasieu Parish Coroner,

Dr. Terry Welke, a medical doctor and forensic pathologist, conducted the autopsy

on Mr. Boutte’s body. Dr. Welke testified that one gunshot entered Mr. Boutte’s

lower back and exited in the groin area. One gunshot entered Mr. Boutte’s left

waist area and exited the right thigh, and finally, the third bullet went through Mr.

Boutte’s right arm, entering the backside of the arm. The gunshot wounds were

primarily in Mr. Boutte’s back and left side, suggesting that he was attempting to

escape when Mr. Guillory began shooting him. We agree with the trial court that

the State proved Mr. Guillory committed the offense of second degree murder

beyond a reasonable doubt.

5

Challenge for Cause

Mr. Guillory argues that the trial court erred when it denied his

challenges for cause of two potential jurors, after which he exhausted all of his

peremptory challenges. He asserts that the denial of both of the challenges for

cause constituted a substantial violation of his constitutional and statutory rights.

In State v. Mitchell, 08-136, pp. 14-15 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/13/09), 7 So.3d 720, 730

(footnotes omitted), the fifth circuit stated the standard of review:

Article I, § 17 of the Louisiana Constitution
guarantees that “[t]he accused shall have a right to full
voir dire examination of prospective jurors and to
challenge jurors peremptorily.” A district court’s
erroneous ruling depriving a defendant of a peremptory
challenge substantially violates that defendant’s rights
and constitutes reversible error. Prejudice is presumed
when the trial court erroneously denies a challenge for
cause, and the defendant ultimately exhausts his
peremptory challenges. Thus, to prevail on appeal, a
defendant must demonstrate 1) erroneous denial of his
challenge for cause, and 2) use of all of his peremptory
challenges. Additionally, the defendant must show that,
when the trial court denied his challenge for cause, he
used one of his peremptory challenges curatively to
remove that juror, thereby reducing his number of
peremptory challenges, or waive the issue on appeal.
This is so even in a case where the defendant uses all of
his peremptory challenges. A trial court is given broad
discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and such
rulings will only be reversed when a review of the entire
voir dire reveals the trial court abused its discretion.

Potential Juror Mr. Picou

First, Mr. Guillory contends that potential juror Mr. Picou should have

been removed based on his challenge for cause. During voir dire, Mr. Picou stated

that he was a former police officer and current fire chief. Defense counsel

comprehensively questioned Mr. Picou regarding his allegiance to the law

6

enforcement community. When it was time to accept or reject potential jurors, the

State accepted Mr. Picou and the defense challenged for cause, stating that Mr.

Picou’s responses indicated that he would give more credence to police officers’

testimony. Following extensive questioning, the trial court, however, believed that

Mr. Picou had been dealt with thoroughly and that “he did salvage himself, so

we’re going to leave him on there.” Simply because a defendant might be

uncomfortable with a former police officer being on the jury does not make that

juror partial towards law enforcement. We do not believe the trial court abused its

discretion by denying Mr. Guillory’s challenge for cause of Mr. Picou.

Potential Juror Mr. Hooks

As the State and defense counsel indicated their choices for the jury,

defense counsel challenged potential juror Mr. Hooks for cause, stating that Mr.

Hooks indicated during voir dire that he might know Mr. Boutte’s son, Javon

Boutte. However, during voir dire, the State showed Mr. Hooks a picture of Javon

Boutte, and Mr. Hooks stated that was not the man he thought was Javon Boutte.

For this reason, the trial court denied defense counsel’s challenge of Mr. Hooks for

cause. On appeal, Mr. Guillory argues that the reason he challenged Mr. Hooks

was that during voir dire Mr. Hooks indicated that he was of the opinion there

should be limitations placed on the ownership of assault weapons by private

individuals. This was not the reason given to the trial court for his challenge

during voir dire. This argument cannot now be raised pursuant to La.Code Crim.P.

art. 841(A) which states in part: “[a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of

after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.” For these reasons

we affirm the trial court’s denial of both of the challenges for cause.

7

Batson Challenge

Mr. Guillory argues that the trial court erred when it sustained the

State’s Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (1986) challenges of two

jurors. He argues that the State did not meet its burden of proving a prima facie

case of discrimination and wrongfully placed the burden of proof on Mr. Guillory.

Specifically, the State raised a Batson argument by noting that defense counsel had

peremptory excused nine of ten women. On appeal, Mr. Guillory argues that the

trial court erred when it reseated two women, Ms. Landry and Ms. McDonald, after

defense counsel had challenged them for cause and with gender-neutral reasons for

the challenge.

In State v. Nelson, 10-1724, 10-1726, p. 7 (La. 3/13/12), 85 So.3d 21,

27-28 , the supreme court discussed Batson challenges:

In Batson the United States Supreme Court held
that the use of peremptory challenges to exclude persons
from a jury based on their race violates the Equal
Protection Clause. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-98, 106 S.Ct.
1712. The holding in Batson was initially adopted by
this Court in State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989),
and has been codified by the legislature in Louisiana
Code of Criminal Procedure article 795(C) and (D).

The supreme court then outlined how the objecting party established a prima facie

showing of a Batson violation:

(1) the striking party’s challenge was directed at a
member of a cognizable group; (2) the challenge was
peremptory rather than for cause; and (3) relevant
circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the
peremptory was used to strike the venireperson on
account of his being a member of that cognizable group.
Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712; [State v.] Sparks,
[88-17, p. 37 (La. 5/11/11),] 68 So.3d [435,] 468; [State
v.] Givens, [99-3518, p. 5 (La. 1/17/01),] 776 So.2d
[443,] 449. If the trial court determines the opponent
failed to establish the threshold requirement of a prima
facie case (step one), then the analysis is at an end and

8

the burden never shifts to the proponent of the strike to
articulate neutral reasons (step two). Sparks, 68 So.3d at
468-89; State v. Duncan, 1999-2615 (La.10/16/01), 802
So.2d 533, 544.

Id. at 29. In J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct. 1419 (1994),

the Supreme Court extended the Batson prohibition to gender discrimination when

selecting a jury.

In State v. Tilley, 99-569, p. 5 (La. 7/6/00), 767 So.2d 6, 13, cert.

denied, 532 U.S. 959, 121 S.Ct. 1488 (2001) (citing State v. Tyler, 97-338 (La.

9/9/98), 723 So.2d 939, 942-43, cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1073, 119 S.Ct. 1472

(1999)), the Supreme Court stated that “[b]ecause the factual determination

pertaining to intentional discrimination rests largely on credibility evaluations, the

trial court’s findings are entitled to great deference by the reviewing court.”

The trial court noted the challenges of the nine women and found it to

be “troubling.” Defense counsel appeared to have difficulty articulating clear and

specific reasons for striking each woman. First, contrary to defense counsel’s

assertion, Ms. McDonald did not have a negative attitude toward guns. In fact, she

stated that her husband owns guns and they have guns in their home. Secondly,

upon review of the voir dire transcript, defense counsel confused the responses of

Ms. Landry and Ms. Sackett. On appeal, Mr. Guillory argued that Ms. Landry was

frustrated by the shooting death of her grandson and that because she was not the

mother, she could not find out information regarding the shooting. However, Ms.

Landry was twenty-three years old and an English teacher at McNeese State

University and had no grandson. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial

court’s grant of the State’s Batson challenge.

9

V.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Guillory’s conviction, the denial of Mr.

Guillory’s challenges for cause, and the State’s Batson challenges.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

10