State of Louisiana v. Billy Ray Harris

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

17-996

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

BILLY RAY HARRIS

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 10540-13
HONORABLE DAVID A. RITCHIE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Phyllis M. Keaty, and D. Kent Savoie,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

John Foster DeRosier
District Attorney, Fourteenth Judicial District Court
Karen C. McLellan
Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Box 3206
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602-3206
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Chad M. Ikerd
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 2125
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502
(225) 806-2930
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Billy Ray Harris

Billy Ray Harris
Post Office Box 2017
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602
IN PROPER PERSON

SAVOIE, Judge.

The State charged Defendant Billy Ray Harris by bill of indictment with the

second degree murder of Raymona Lisa Gilmore between July 27, 2012, and July

29, 2012. A jury unanimously convicted Defendant as charged. Defendant was

sentenced to serve life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole,

probation, or suspension of sentence. Defendant now appeals the conviction. For

the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

Defendant’s ex-wife, Raymona Gilmore, with whom he was living at the time,

was found dead at her home by the couple’s daughter. While her body was found to

have bruises and scrapes, her death was caused by head trauma she sustained. She

also had a large amount of drugs in her system at the time of her death. The killer

took the time to re-position her body on the couch to make it look like she was

sleeping. The killer also covered her head to conceal the injuries. After an

investigation, Defendant was charged with the murder of Raymona Gilmore and was

ultimately found guilty.

DISCUSSION

I. 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 no errors

patent.

II. Assignment of Error and Applicable Law

Defendant contends the circumstantial evidence presented by the State was

insufficient to convict him of second degree murder because the State failed to

exclude the possibility that someone else murdered the victim.

In State v. Crawford, 14-2153, pp. 19-20 (La. 11/16/16), 218 So.3d 13, 26

(emphasis in original), the supreme court discussed the review of circumstantial

evidence cases as follows:

“[N]o person shall be made to suffer the onus of a criminal
conviction except upon sufficient proof-defined as evidence necessary
to convince a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of
every element of the offense.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316,
99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). A reviewing court, examining
all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, must
determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 319,
99 S.Ct. 2781; accord State v. Brown, 02-1922, p. 8 (La. 5/20/03), 846
So.2d 715, 721. In State v. Davis, 92-1623, p. 11 (La. 5/23/94), 637
So.2d 1012, 1020, a capital case, this court explained:

In circumstantial evidence cases, this court does not
determine whether another possible hypothesis suggested
by a defendant could afford an exculpatory explanation of
the events. Rather, this court, evaluating the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution, determines
whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently
reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson v.
Virginia[.]

The Jackson standard does not permit this court to substitute its own
appreciation of the facts for that of the factfinder. State v. Robertson,
96-1048, p. 1 (La. 10/4/96), 680 So.2d 1165, 1166. It is not the province
of the reviewing court to assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh
evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116, p. 2 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442,
443. As explained in State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1310 (La.
1988):

If rational triers of fact could disagree as to the
interpretation of the evidence, the rational trier’s view of
all of the evidence most favorable to the prosecution must
be adopted. Thus, irrational decisions to convict will be
overturned, rational decisions to convict will be upheld,
and the actual fact finder’s discretion will be impinged
upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the
fundamental protection of due process of law. [Footnote
omitted.]

To convict Defendant of second degree murder under the State’s theory of the

case, the State had to prove Defendant killed Raymona Gilmore with the specific

intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm in accordance with La.R.S. 14:30.1.
2

III. Evidence Presented at Trial by the State

While patrolling in north Lake Charles on Saturday, July 28, 2012, Deputy

Christopher Miller, a patrolman with the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office, observed

a red Nissan Altima that had crashed into a trailer. Defendant was the driver of the

Altima. Defendant told Deputy Miller that he was okay and that he did not need

medical attention. Defendant explained that he did not know how the wreck

happened, but that he had an argument earlier with his ex-wife, and he had moved

out. In the back seat of the Altima was a television and a woman’s purse. Deputy

Miller also observed a pill bottle on the ground next to the car.

Because the wreck was inside the city limits, Officer Jacob Pearson of the

Lake Charles Police Department was called to the scene at 7:20 a.m. Officer Pearson

testified that Defendant spoke coherently, had a bit of a slur, but did not seem

intoxicated or “un-normal” when he arrived. Officer Pearson collected a

prescription narcotic (Alprazolam) that was in the name of Raymona Gilmore.1 He

also located a loose pill between the driver’s seat and the door and another on the

floorboard. Defendant was arrested for possession of narcotics and was taken to the

police department and later to the Calcasieu Correctional Center, where his level of

impairment prohibited his acceptance. The jail accepted him after he was taken to

the hospital.

Some miscellaneous items were removed from the vehicle by Officer David

Hampton, a patrol officer with the Lake Charles Police Department, including two

wallets and some keys. The victim’s driver’s license was found amongst these items.

Deputy Christopher Cormier of the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office processed some

of the crime scene as well as the vehicle. He identified the victim’s empty

The indictment indicates the victim’s first name is “Raymona”; however, in the trial
1

transcript her name is spelled “Ramona.” We have used the spelling contained in the indictment.
3

prescription bottle of hydrocodone recovered from the passenger side seat of the car.

The date on the bottle was July 27, 2012, and the prescription was for five 500

milligram pills. Recovered from the back seat of the car was a bag of clothing

containing a pair of white socks, plaid shorts, one pair of blue underwear, one blue

t-shirt, and one red USA ball cap. When the items were collected, they were damp,

but there was nothing else in the car that was wet or damp.

Officer Pearson testified that he was concerned by the way Defendant

discussed his ex-wife, which prompted him to request that a sheriff’s deputy be

dispatched to her home for a welfare check. The welfare check was performed on

July 28, 2012, at approximately 8:07 a.m. by Dennis Miller of the Calcasieu Parish

Sheriff’s Office. Once at her mobile home, he knocked on each window and both

doors but received no response. He walked completely around the home, and left

after observing no forced entry or damage.

Chloe Harris, who is the daughter of the victim and Defendant, testified that,

when she got off of work at 2 p.m. on July 29, 2012, she went to her great-

grandmother’s house and found out that her family had not spoken to her mother all

weekend. At this point, Ms. Harris went to the victim’s house to check on her. She

looked through the window and noticed the living room 52-inch flat screen television

was missing. Her mother’s car was also gone, leading Ms. Harris to believe

something was wrong. Because she did not have a key, Ms. Harris forced her way

through the front door of the home with a credit card and by pulling on the bottom

of the door. The bottom hinge was not attached to the frame of the door.2 She

noticed that her sister’s room was a disaster. Her sister’s television was missing,

although the room was “fine” on Friday, two days prior. On the couch, she found

2
On redirect examination, Ms. Harris testified that she recalled the front door working fine
on Friday.
4

her mother’s body covered by pillows and blankets. On cross-examination, Ms.

Harris testified that her mother’s head was “kind of in the corner of the couch” and

there was blood “all over the place.”

The last time Ms. Harris saw her mother was Friday morning, two days before

finding her mother’s body. According to Ms. Harris, her mother was “really sick”

from thyroid problems thought by her doctor to be thyroid cancer. She was taking

antibiotics for the thyroid issue and was also taking pain medication for problems

with her teeth. On cross-examination, Ms. Harris testified that her mother was

taking antibiotics, pain pills, anxiety medicine, and “something else for her throat.”

Later Friday night, after Ms. Harris got off work, she spoke to her mother on the

telephone at around 10:30 or 11:00. This was the last time the two spoke. The next

day, Ms. Harris’ attempts to call and text her mother were unsuccessful.

Officer Dennis Miller, the officer who performed the welfare check, testified

that on July 29, 2012, he was called out to the same location for a “possible

disturbance.” When he approached the victim’s trailer, three or four people were

outside yelling and screaming hysterically. Chloe Harris told him her mother was

on the couch unresponsive, at which point he entered the house and located the

victim’s body. After clearing the home, he called paramedics, supervisors, and

detectives. Officer Miller testified that the door was hanging sideways, but the day

before, it had no signs of damage. He testified that Chloe told him she had forced

her way into the home.

A medicine bottle containing seventy-four blue clindamycin pills was

collected from the coffee table in the victim’s living room, according to Lieutenant

Jason Alexander of the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office. The prescription was

dated July 27, 2012, and was for 80 pills, two of which were to be taken four times

daily. Lieutenant Alexander also took a swab of a rust-colored stain underneath the
5

washing machine lid. He noted there were seventeen washcloths and fourteen

towels in the dryer. No blood was noticed on them. Melanie Hinton, an evidence

custodian with the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office, testified that she obtained a

medicine bottle in the name of Raymona Gilmore recovered from a bag in the north

bedroom containing three pills of “Hydrocodone, Acetaminophen, ten to six 50

milligrams” generic for Lorcet. This was prescribed on July 15, 2012, and the

original quantity was ten.

Sylvia (Pat) Wynne, the victim’s mother, testified that the victim had been

bringing clothes for her to wash because the drainage in the trailer was not working

properly. Ms. Wynne identified photographs of the shower and two tubs in the trailer

that had “stuff that backed up into” them. On cross-examination, Ms. Wynne could

not say how long the tubs had been backed up, but on redirect she said she had been

helping her daughter wash clothes for about two weeks.

Thomas Vaughn testified that on July 27, 2012, he was the designated driver

for Defendant, his brother, and some of his friends to hang out and go out that night.

At approximately 10:20 or 10:30 p.m., Mr. Vaughn dropped Defendant off at home,

and he was acting drunk. According to Mr. Vaughn, Defendant did not want to get

out of the car, and he complained that his life was “messed up.” Mr. Vaughn testified

that the victim’s car was there when he dropped Defendant off and that Defendant

sat outside on an ice chest as he was driving away.

Elizabeth Miller met the victim several weeks prior to the incident. She

testified that she stayed at her house for a couple of weeks. On Friday, July 27,

2012, the victim did not go to work, rather she ran errands and had a doctor’s

appointment. Ms. Miller stayed at the victim’s house until about 3:00 or 4:00 p.m.,

at which point she left to go to DeQuincy. She later contacted the victim and

Defendant to see if she could “go back early there.” The victim responded via text
6

at 11:30 p.m. and said, “Just woke up, feeling really bad, hurting so bad.” At 2:09

a.m. the following morning, Ms. Miller texted Defendant and asked if she could go

to their house “tomorrow morning.” At 2:49 a.m., he responded, “No.” On cross-

examination, Ms. Miller explained that this was unusual because she had been

staying at the victim’s home for two weeks, and she had never been told not to return.

This was the last contact she had with them.

Ms. Miller also testified that she spoke to Defendant after he was incarcerated.

A recording of the phone call was introduced into evidence at trial. In the call,

Defendant told Ms. Miller that he and the victim were going to stay in a hotel because

sewerage had backed up in their bathtub. Defendant told her that the reason he told

her in the text message that she could not come over was because he and the victim

were leaving. He said the victim got a call to get some pills so he left to pick them

up, which Defendant later took. He explained that he got “fucked up,” “crashed,”

and “died”; had to have his stomach pumped; and had to be “revived.” He told Ms.

Miller he did not know what happened to the victim.

William Spees of the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office testified that when he

arrived on the scene, Chloe Harris told him that two televisions were missing from

the home. Deputy Spees testified that the television removed from Holly’s room

had been ripped out of the wall. According to Deputy Spees, the televisions were

recovered from the victim’s vehicle after it was involved in the accident. He

identified the smaller television as still having the part on the cable that screws into

the back of the television. Neither the murder weapon, Defendant’s cell phone, nor

the victim’s cell phone were ever located.

Deputy Spees interviewed Defendant on July 29, 2012. A number of

interviews with Defendant were played for the jury, with this being the first. In the

interview, Defendant said he was living with the victim because he had been laid
7

off, his unemployment ran out, and the victim had gotten sick. He was staying there

to help her with the kids, but he intended to move out soon because he had been re-

hired. They were only friends and stayed on opposite ends of the home. Defendant

found out about the victim’s death from his brother Jerad Harris. Defendant said his

brother and his mother-in-law thought that the victim overdosed. He said the last

time he saw the victim was when he was dropped off after drinking with friends. He

could not recall the exact time because he was intoxicated. On Saturday, between

noon and 1:00 p.m., Defendant left the house because the plumbing was messed up

and sewerage would back up into the bathtubs when they washed clothes or flushed

toilets. He said numerous times during the interview that he was confused about the

days and times that things occurred and that his memory was fuzzy. He left to take

a shower at Thomas’ house and the victim was supposed to leave to shower

somewhere else. Elizabeth was there during the day as well. He said he later

overdosed and crashed the victim’s car.

Defendant said the victim was taking Lorcet for a toothache and another

medication for her nose. He said she “messes with a lot of people” to get her “stuff”

and that she had a lot of people in and out of the house providing her drugs. She

gave him the keys to her car, and he headed for the first store he could find that was

open. When asked why he was picked up by police so far from the victim’s trailer,

he could not explain other than to say he did not know where he was going or what

he was doing because he was “so fucked up.” Defendant said he should have stayed

at home with the victim because she would not have overdosed. The victim was

lying on the couch smoking a cigarette when he left to go to the store. He explained

that he stayed “messed up” the whole weekend. When asked what he was going to

do with the televisions, Defendant said he did not know.

8

Deputy Spees was asked at trial about the information provided by Defendant

in his statement. Defendant said in his statement that the victim would not allow

him to take her vehicle any time he was under the influence or “too messed up” to

drive. He could not recall where he was going when he wrecked because he was

very intoxicated or under the influence of narcotics.

Deputy Spees also monitored Defendant’s phone calls from the jail. These

were played for the jury and entered into the record. The first call was recorded on

July 29, 2012, and was between Defendant and his mother. She told Defendant that

the victim was found with a pillow on top of her face and that it was being

investigated as a homicide. Defendant told his mother that the victim loaned him

the car because the victim was too “fucked up” to leave. He said the victim gave

him pills, and he overdosed on them. When he woke up, he was told by a nurse they

had to revive him. He said the victim always fought with people over pills, but he

stayed out of her business. When his mother tried to think of who would have stolen

the televisions out of the house, Defendant said he did not know, but maybe he took

them because he was “fucked up” and may have planned to sell them for drugs.

Defendant told his mother that he had not yet been questioned by authorities.

The second call with his mother was also from July 29, 2012. At this point,

Defendant had spoken to authorities. He said the victim was passed out when he

took the televisions, and he was going to pack all of his stuff and stay with a friend

of Elizabeth’s, but he did not make it. He told his mother that the house had been

broken into many times with things having been taken. Detective Spees testified

that just prior to this conversation between Defendant and his mother, Defendant

told the authorities he did not know why the televisions were in the car; he could not

remember anything about that.

9

In a third conversation on August 2, 2012, Defendant spoke to his cousin.3

Defendant told his cousin that he tried to convince Raymona to stay in a hotel since

they could not bathe at the trailer, but she did not want to go. She wanted to spend

the money on pills instead. Defendant finally persuaded her to go to a hotel, but then

she got a phone call or text message about “meeting a person down the road.”

The prosecutor asked Deputy Spees if he found it interesting that the victim’s

body was covered up. Depute Spees testified that he learned in classes that when a

body is covered up, that typically means that someone very close to that person

committed the murder because they do not want to see what they have done. They

also do not want whoever discovers the body to have “the shock of just walking in

and seeing that.”

Jason McWright, a detective with the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office,

interviewed Defendant on August 1, 2012. Detective McWright testified that

Defendant said he was married to the victim for five years and had been divorced

for eight. He had been staying with the victim for about four or five weeks. He was

staying there with his girlfriend, Ashley Broussard, at first, but she was causing

problems so he broke up with her, and the victim kicked her out. He said he and the

victim were staying together for their kids, but they led separate lives. He could not

remember if the last time he saw the victim was Friday or Saturday night, but he

remembered talking to her while she was on the couch. They were watching

television and taking pills, and he was drinking beer. Defendant said he left with

Thomas Vaughan to shower at his house. Defendant recalled that they may have

stopped by to visit the victim later that night with their friend Scotty, but they left

again to go to a party at Kirk’s house. Defendant did not get back home until the

3
Despite Detective Spees’ testimony that this was a conversation between Defendant and
his brother, during the conversation, Defendant asked his cousin to pray for Defendant’s brother,
Jared. Thus, it appears this conversation was with Defendant’s cousin, not his brother.
10

next day, and he “believe[d] [he] spent the night there with her.” He said no one

else was there but he and the victim, and he woke up on the little couch in the living

room. The victim was on the other couch. After the two woke up, they ate at

approximately 1:00 or 2:00 p.m. and then talked. Defendant said he started drinking

again, and he and the victim both got “messed up” on pills such as Xanax, Lortab,

and Lorcets. Defendant said he drank a twelve or eighteen pack of beer.

In this interview, Defendant did not remember the car crash but remembered

waking up at the hospital and then later waking up again face down in a jail cell. He

also remembered that he and the victim talked about him going to the store and it

being okay for him to drive her car. He thought this happened late Saturday, but he

was not sure because he was taking pills and drinking.

Defendant told Detective McWright that he and the victim had previous

threats on their lives, and people broke into their home. Defendant said his ex-

girlfriend Ashley told him that there were people that were going to harm him.

Detective McWright asked Defendant about the things found in the car.

Defendant said he had no idea how the televisions got into the car. Detective

McWright told Defendant that when the deputy who came upon the scene of the

wreck asked about the televisions in the back seat, Defendant told him that he and

his “old lady” got in a fight and he was moving out. During the interview, Defendant

denied that he and the victim got into a fight. Defendant affirmed during the

interview that the victim would probably not allow him to walk out of the house with

the televisions.

When asked who he thought might have killed the victim, Defendant said he

thought it might have been friends of Ashley. Defendant stated that he did not recall

anyone coming in the house while he was there, and he did not know how the victim

was killed. He denied inflicting her injuries or being present when she was killed.
11

Defendant said the victim was not in the car with him, and he replied, “If she was

with me in the car, she’d be dead. That’s when I wrecked the car, right?” Detective

McWright told Defendant police found him wrecked at 7:05 on Saturday morning,

so he and the victim could not have awakened Saturday at 1:00 or 2:00 p.m., because

he was already in the hospital by then. Defendant explained that he must have gotten

his days mixed up.

During the interview, Detective McWright asked Defendant about the bag of

freshly washed clothing in the back seat of the car, Defendant said he did not wash

clothes at Thomas Vaughan’s house, and it made “no sense” that the clothes were in

the car. Defendant stated that they could have been someone else’s clothing. He

also could not explain why his ex-wife’s empty pill bottle was on the ground outside

of the car. Defendant said her wallet and purse could have been there because she

leaves them on the seat from time to time. Detective McWright then told Defendant

that his daughters stated their mother never let her purse out of her sight because,

most of the time, it contained pills. They also said the victim never let Defendant

drive her car. Defendant explained that the fact that he drove her car was a secret

between the victim and him because the victim did not want her mother to know she

allowed Defendant to drive her car. Defendant denied ever getting mad and striking

the victim.

Detective David Doucette of the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office interviewed

Defendant on August 31, 2012. Defendant said in this statement that the only time

he was allowed to use the victim’s car was when he ran her errands. Detective

Doucette told Defendant that the victim’s father was the owner of the car, and the

victim was the co-signer; therefore, the car was in her father’s name. Defendant

believed the victim’s parents hated him. He said that the victim wanted someone in

the house at all times because Defendant’s ex-girlfriend, Ashley Broussard, went
12

into the trailer and stole all of Defendant’s belongings after he broke up with her.

Another time, he had to run some teenagers off when they came up to the trailer.

According to Defendant, the victim’s front door was broken. Defendant said on the

day of the wreck, the victim sent him to pick up some pills. He could not recall the

time, but he said he had been with her brother and “them” all day. Defendant

claimed the victim wanted to ride with him, but she did not want to leave the house

empty for fear of their things being stolen.

Detective Brent Young of the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office testified that

he obtained the victim’s phone records, and they showed that, on July 27, 2012, at

8:02 p.m., the victim’s phone received a call lasting 14 minutes and 33 seconds from

James LeBleu at the Calcasieu Correctional Center, who was a friend of the victim.

The last outgoing text message, to Elizabeth Miller, was at 11:30 p.m. on July 27,

2012, and the following morning there were incoming text messages with no

responses.

Monica Quaal of the Southwest Louisiana Crime Lab testified that the swabs

submitted to her all tested positive for blood; however, they were unable to get a

DNA profile. These swabs were obtained from the laundry room wall below the

light switch, from below the handle on the dryer door, and from under the washing

machine lid.

Ashley Broussard, Defendant’s ex-girlfriend, testified that they were together

for five and one-half years. In 2012, Ms. Broussard lived with Defendant and the

victim, but she moved out around June 24, 2012, when she “didn’t want to be with

[Defendant] anymore.” Ms. Broussard testified that, on one occasion when she and

Defendant went out for his birthday, she got upset because he asked the cab driver

for drugs. Defendant grabbed her and dragged her into the hotel room where the

two fought, he choked her, and she blacked out. When she awoke, she had “messed
13

[her] pants” and for an hour, he would not let her go to the bathroom to clean up.

Another time, when the two were staying with a friend of Defendant, his friend told

him that Ms. Broussard had been sneaking out to see the guy who lived next door.

Although she denied the allegation, Defendant believed his friend and did not want

her to leave her room for four days. In the meantime, Defendant and his friends

were making drugs, and against her will, Defendant injected Ms. Broussard with

methamphetamine. At that time, Ms. Broussard had never ingested

methamphetamine or any other drug by needle. She further testified that she had

scars on her hands from Defendant biting her when she was trying to remove his

hands from her neck. On another occasion, Defendant sold her truck for crack

cocaine.

On cross-examination, Ms. Broussard testified that a scar on her chest was

caused by the two of them fighting while drinking, a fight during which they both

hurt each other. Ms. Broussard testified that she left Defendant to change her life

because she was tired of fighting.

Another ex-wife of Defendant, Stacy Veillon, who is also the victim’s cousin,

testified that, while they were married, Defendant stole her wallet and took her car

to north Lake Charles in order to get drugs. Another time, he stole all of her jewelry

and, when she went looking for him, she found him at a hotel room “spun out” on

drugs. Ms. Veillon also found a recording of Defendant attempting to pawn her

video recorder.

Ms. Veillon was asked about incidents of abuse at the hands of Defendant.

She recalled one time he grabbed her by the throat, lifted her up, and threw her on

the floor. She described another incident as follows:

He had me lay in the bed and he was high and he had these --
when he would get messed up I always had these people, imaginary
people, that I was cheating on him with and I had several of them in the
14

house at this particular time and I wasn’t telling him where they were
and he had - - I had a really big, thick, green cookie jar and he told me
that I couldn’t get out of the bed until I told him where they were
because he would go find them and if I didn’t tell him that he was going
to beat me with the cookie jar and I kept saying -- I’m sorry. I kept
saying no, there’s nobody. You’re -- you’re -- there’s nobody and he
would get more rage and more rage. So at this point I’m like, “Well,
there they go,” and so on the side was my end table and I told him like
there they went, like they ran out the window or something, you know,
and he took my cookie jar and busted my end table up and told me, “I
got ‘em,” and then went out to the kitchen and got a broom and came
back and he was going to hit me with it and said, “I told you that you
were lying to me this whole time.” He just got done telling me that they
went out and he was going to hit me with the broom, and I screamed,
“Jesus,” and he just like in mid air just stopped and then went outside
in his underwear with the broom going up and down the road looking
for these imaginary people.

Finally, there was an incident where Defendant choked Ms. Veillon, and she

passed out. When she woke up, Defendant was crying and said, “Oh my God, I can’t

believe [t]hat. . . .you’re alive, I thought I killed you.”

Dr. Terry Welke, the Calcasieu Parish Coroner, who was accepted by the court

as an expert in the field of forensic pathology, testified that he performed an autopsy

on the victim around 1:00 p.m. on July 30, 2012. He observed bruises and scrapes

on her arms and legs, but her major injuries were four or five blunt force injuries to

her head as well as a “chop injury” from something like a hatchet or an ax. Dr.

Welke felt that a hammer may have been used, and he confirmed that this was a

violent attack. The trauma to the victim’s head caused brain injuries that led to the

victim’s death. His opinion was that the victim’s injuries occurred while she was

lying on the couch and that her body was repositioned after being struck in the head

multiple times, so that it would give the appearance that she was asleep. Dr. Welke

saw no defensive wounds.

Drug testing done as part of the autopsy revealed that the victim had

Alprazolam (Xanax), an anxiety medication, in her system. The amount she had was

seven to ten times the normal therapeutic level prescribed by a physician.
15

Hydrocodone (Vicodin), a potent narcotic pain medication was also detected. The

level of this drug was four times the upper end of the therapeutic level. Also found

in her system was clindamycin, an antibiotic. Based on Dr. Welke’s observations,

he determined the time of death to be around midnight or 12:05 a.m. on July 28,

2012.

Jamie Harris, Defendant’s sister, testified for the defense. On July 4, 2012,

when she picked her brother up, she saw him “fiddling” with the door because the

deadbolt could only be locked from the inside of the house and because someone

had tried to break in. He was making sure no one could get in the house.4

About two weeks later, the victim called Ms. Harris. During the conversation,

the victim told Ms. Harris that someone had tried to break in and that she felt safe

with Defendant there. Ms. Harris visited the house at least once a month around that

time, and she observed no discord in the home between the victim and Defendant.

In closing argument to the jury, the State explained its theory of the case. The

State believes that the Defendant was dropped off by Thomas Vaughn on the evening

of July 27, 2012, and he talked to Vaughn about how messed up life is. Rather than

going inside the trailer, he sat outside and drank more before going inside. The

victim was awake at 11:30 p.m. because she sent a message to Elizabeth Miller about

how bad she was feeling. Defendant admitted in his statement to Detective

McWright that he and the victim were the only two people in the house on Friday

night and Saturday morning. Dr. Welke determined the victim’s time of death to be

midnight or 12:05 a.m. on July 28, 2012. At 2:49 a.m. that morning, Defendant told

Elizabeth Miller in a text message that she could not come to the trailer. In a

subsequent conversation between Defendant and Ms. Miller after his incarceration,

On cross-examination, Ms. Harris testified that “there was only one lock you can lock
4

from the outside.”
16

he told her that she could not come over because he and the victim were about to

leave to go to a motel. Thus, he was at the victim’s trailer at 2:49 a.m. that morning.

The State’s theory was that Defendant used the time after the murder to reposition

and cover the victim’s body, clean up the crime scene, and wash clothes. A

substance testing positive for blood was found on the laundry room wall under the

light switch, under the lid of the washing machine, and under the handle of the dryer

door. Sewerage was observed backed up in the bathtubs, which happened when

clothes were washed. At 7:10 a.m. that morning, Defendant was found in the

victim’s wrecked car. Defendant had a history of violence with his ex-wife and his

ex-girlfriend. Both Defendant’s ex-wife and his ex-girlfriend had belongings taken

from them by Defendant, which he then sold to purchase drugs. As for intent to kill

or inflict great bodily injury, the severity of the injuries inflicted on the victim

established this element.

Considering the evidence presented at trial, in a light most favorable to the

prosecution and giving deference to the jury’s credibility determination, we

conclude that the alternative hypothesis that someone else killed Ms. Gilmore is not

sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found Defendant guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt.

DECREE

Defendant’s conviction is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

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

17