State of Louisiana v. Tyler Nicholas Benoit

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

KA 22-310

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

TYLER NICHOLAS BENOIT

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. CR-163581
HONORABLE MARILYN CARR CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Billy Howard Ezell, and D. Kent Savoie,
Judges.

CONVICTION FOR MANSLAUGHTER AFFIRMED; SENTENCE
FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AFFIRMED; SENTENCE FOR
MANSLAUGHTER VACATED AND SET ASIDE AND REMANDED FOR
RESENTENCING.

Donald Dale Landry
District Attorney
Kenneth P. Hebert
Assistant District Attorney
Fifteenth Judicial District Court
P. O. Box 3306
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 232-5170
COUNSEL FOR:
State of Louisiana

Douglas Lee Harville
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 52988
Shreveport, LA 71135
(318) 222-1700
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:
Tyler Nicholas Benoit

EZELL, Judge.

Defendant, Tyler Nicholas Benoit, was charged by indictment filed on

October 11, 2017, with second degree murder, a violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. A

bill of information adding the charge of obstruction of justice, a violation of

La.R.S. 14:130.1(A)(1), was filed on June 7, 2018. Jury selection commenced on

October 11, 2021, and the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding Defendant

guilty of manslaughter, a violation of La.R.S. 14:31, and obstruction of justice on

October 15, 2021. On February 24, 2022, Defendant was sentenced to serve forty

years at hard labor for manslaughter and to twenty years at hard labor for

obstruction of justice, to run concurrently. A motion to reconsider sentence was

filed on March 3, 2022, and was subsequently denied. A motion for appeal and

designation of record was filed on March 10, 2022.

Defendant is now before this court asserting the State failed to prove his

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that his sentences are excessive. We find

Defendant’s conviction for manslaughter and the sentence for obstruction of justice

should be affirmed.

FACTS

On August 12, 2017, Defendant and several of his friends, Bryan Eddington,

Angel Hebert, Gavin White, and Devin White, went to Grant Street Dance Hall in

Lafayette. After leaving the bar, Bryan and Angel got into an argument, and Angel

was pushed to the ground. The victim, Christon Chaisson, intervened on Angel’s

behalf. A fight involving Defendant, Bryan, Gavin, and Christon then began.

Defendant shot Christon in the lower right flank and subsequently disposed of the

firearm. Christon died as a result of his injuries.

ERRORS PATENT

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

errors patent on the face of the record. We find there are no errors patent.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

In his first assignment of error, Defendant contends eyewitness testimony

from neutral and interested witnesses was internally inconsistent, and that police

interrogation techniques and questioning altered witness statements. Thus, the

State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, an appellate court in Louisiana is controlled by the
standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). . . .
[T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a
rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676,
678 (La.1984). . . .

....

As a general matter, when the key issue is the defendant’s
identity as the perpetrator, rather than whether the crime was
committed, the state is required to negate any reasonable probability
of misidentification. State v. Smith, 430 So.2d 31, 45 (La.1983); State
v. Brady, 414 So.2d 364, 365 (La.1982); State v. Long, 408 So.2d
1221, 1227 (La.1982). However, positive identification by only one
witness is sufficient to support a conviction. See State v. Mussall, 523
So.2d 1305, 1311 (La.1988) (generally, one witness’s positive
identification is sufficient to support the conviction); State v. Ford,
28,724 (La.App.2d Cir.10/30/96), 682 So.2d 847, 849–50, writ
denied, 99–0210 (La.5/14/99), 745 So.2d 12. . . . The trier of fact
makes credibility determinations and may, within the bounds of
rationality, accept or reject the testimony of any witness; thus, a
reviewing court may impinge on the “fact finder’s discretion only to
the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of
law.” Mussall, 523 So.2d at 1310 (La.1988).

State v. Neal, 00-674, pp. 9–11 (La. 6/29/01), 796 So.2d 649, 657–58, (alterations

in original), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 940, 122 S.Ct. 1323 (2002).

2

Lieutenant William Gavin White testified he reported to the scene and had a

body-worn camera. According to Lieutenant White, Gavin was questioned about

where his brother, Devin, was and what he was driving. Lieutenant White testified

that a female indicated she saw an individual run and get into a dark Tahoe, and

that individual was associated with Gavin. Gavin said Devin left in a dark Tahoe.

Therefore, Louisiana State Police put out a “be-on-the-lookout alert (BOLO)” for

the vehicle, and Lieutenant White contacted the Vermillion Parish Sheriff’s Office

and the Kaplan Police Department to inquire about the vehicle. Lieutenant White

never listed Gavin as a suspect. However, Devin was a suspect. Upon looking

closely at the bodycam footage, it appeared to Lieutenant White that Gavin had

hair down to his shoulders.

In the body-worn camera footage, there was discussion regarding several

vehicles, including a dark Tahoe. According to a police officer seen in the video, a

female reported the suspect was with the man detained by police (Gavin), and that

the suspect left in a black SUV. Police further stated the detainee’s brother left in a

black SUV. The suspect was a male who had longer hair and “sort of a beard” and

wore a white shirt. According to Gavin, his brother left in a black SUV.

Lieutenant Robinson Olivero also had a body-worn camera. A man and

woman are seen on the footage. Both indicated there was a fight. However, neither

of them saw who shot the victim, and they did not know the victim.

Sergeant Todd Borel was assigned to interview two witnesses, Angel Hebert

and Bryan Eddington. Bryan’s interview was played for the jury. Bryan was

Angel’s boyfriend. Bryan was informed by Sergeant Borel that Angel had reported

what occurred between the two of them. Bryan told Sergeant Borel that he and

Angel got into a fight inside the club. When they left, someone was hit with a beer

3

bottle. Angel then went back into the bar. Bryan walked with Gavin but then left.

Gavin subsequently called Bryan, requesting that he return. Bryan met Gavin in

the parking lot where the offense occurred. Angel and Bryan started arguing again,

and Bryan turned to walk away when Angel grabbed the back of his shirt. Bryan

pushed Angel, and she fell. Christon tried to help Angel get up and told Bryan and

Gavin to get away. Bryan stated that he, Gavin, and Angel subsequently fought

with Christon. Someone pushed Bryan twice, he lost his phone, and he was

looking for it when he heard a gunshot. He did not know who fired the shot.

Sergeant Borel then told Bryan that police knew who shot Christon and that

police had that person in custody. Thus, Bryan should not leave anything out.

Bryan again indicated he did not know who the shooter was and only remembered

Angel and Gavin being present. Sergeant Borel told Bryan he was not being a very

good witness. Bryan then reported that “before that,” Defendant, Gavin, and

Devin argued over something. Bryan reiterated he did not know who shot the

victim. Sergeant Borel then stated he knew who fired the shot, but he would not

tell Bryan. Bryan then stated he thought it was Defendant who fired the shot.

Bryan reported that Defendant got hit by a beer bottle and was drunk. Bryan then

said he did not know if Defendant had a gun. He stated Devin, Gavin, and

Defendant were arguing among themselves then Gavin came over to Bryan.

Sergeant Borel subsequently asked Bryan who was going to raise his four-month-

old son while he was in prison and told Bryan he was not being honest. Bryan then

stated he was “pretty sure” Defendant fired the shot. He then stated he was “pretty

positive.” Bryan thought it was Defendant because Defendant was angry, had

gotten hit by a beer bottle, and was drunk. Bryan then said he assumed it was

4

Defendant because Defendant was so angry. Bryan told police he had never seen

Defendant that angry.

Sergeant Borel told Bryan there were cameras in the parking lot. Sergeant

Borel then informed Bryan that covering for someone could lead to being charged

as an accessory. Next, Sergeant Borel said he could tell Bryan was not being

completely honest. Thereafter, Bryan reported a big fight broke out with Angel,

Gavin, Christon, and himself. Defendant was there, and they all got slammed

against the car. Bryan then said Defendant “shot that dude,” and he saw Defendant

do it with a black pistol. Afterward, Defendant ran. Bryan last saw Devin after the

fight in the parking lot, but believed Devin left before the shooting. He later

reiterated he did not see Devin during the pushing and shoving.

Sergeant Borel testified that he did not provide the name Tyler Benoit during

the interview, Bryan did. Sergeant Borel did not know that name prior to his

interview with Angel.

Bryan testified that he was friends with Defendant, Gavin, and Devin.

Bryan said a group of his friends went to a bar and were asked to leave because

Defendant got hit with a beer bottle. He subsequently pushed Angel’s hands off

him when he turned around, and she fell. He saw Defendant and Devin by the

Tahoe but did not remember if Defendant, Gavin, and Devin got into an argument

by the Tahoe. While Angel was on the ground and Bryan was trying to help her

up, a man walked up, pushed Bryan away, and said he saw what Bryan did. At

some point Gavin walked over. Next, a big argument involving Bryan, Christon,

Angel, and Gavin occurred. Bryan testified, “[W]e was [sic] trying to calm him

down and stop the arguments and go home. But he wouldn’t let Angel leave with

me.” Bryan was pushed against a car, and Bryan hit Christon. Bryan then dropped

5

his phone and turned to look for it, when the shooting happened. Bryan was

questioned about Defendant as follows:

Q. Where was Tyler?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Did you see Tyler around that time, at all?

A. No. I seen [sic] Tyler after everything happened.

Q. You saw Tyler after everything had happened.

A. (No response).

Q. When’s the last time you remember seeing Tyler before the
shooting?

A. By the Tahoe.

Q. So tell me all that you can remember about Tyler that night in
that parking lot.

A. (No response).

Q. Tell me what you remember about Tyler.

A. I thought Tyler left with Devin.

Q. Did you talk to Tyler, at all, in that parking lot?

A. No. I don’t believe so.

Bryan admitted he told police that Defendant shot Christon. However, he

testified that was not the truth. Bryan said he was pressured because police told

him he would not raise his newborn son. Bryan then stated he gave Defendant’s

name because he knew Defendant owned a handgun.

Bryan testified he did not see Devin during the pushing, and he did not see

the Tahoe drive off. He remembered telling police he had never seen Defendant

that angry before. However, he did not recall saying he saw Defendant, Devin, and

6

Gavin in an argument. He then denied Defendant was involved in a scuffle in the

bar.

According to Bryan’s statement to police, Devin wore a white shirt and jeans

that night and was driving a dark, black Tahoe. Bryan testified that he did not

believe Devin was involved in any of the altercations that night.

On cross-examination, Bryan was questioned about threats by police:

Q. Before you were threatened by Detective Borel, you told him
that you didn’t see Tyler Benoit with a gun?

A. (Nodded head “Yes”).

Q. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. As far as you know, he didn’t even own a gun, is what you said.

A. Yeah.

Q. And, also, you indicated - -

A. Well - -

Q. - - you didn’t see him shoot anybody. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And, then, you were threatened. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, tell me about how you felt when you were threatened by
Detective Borel.

A. I was nervous, scared.

Q. What did - - Tell me what threats he gave to you, specifically,
that scared you.

A. That I wasn’t going to see my son.

Q. He told you - -

7

A. Somebody else was going to raise him.

Q. Yeah. He told you somebody else was going to be your son’s
dad. Right?

A. Yep .

....

Q. Okay. I think he also told you you might go to jail.

A. Yeah.

Q. He told you you might be a suspect.

A. Yeah.

Q. Right? All those things scared you?

A. Yep.

Q. Is that why you changed your story?

A. Yep.

Q. The first part of the story - - your statement - - before you were
threatened, was the truth. Right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You’re under oath, right now, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you telling me the truth?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Tyler Benoit did not do this shooting.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that correct?

A. Not that - - I don’t - - Not that I know of.

Q. Okay. You didn’t even see Tyler Benoit with a gun. Right?

A. No, sir.

8

Sergeant Borel interviewed Angel before Bryan. His report indicated Angel

did not know if the victim was involved in the fight because the victim was talking

to her. She also indicated Gavin was involved in the fight, and Bryan got pushed.

She did not say Defendant was involved in the fight.

The interview of Angel was published to the jury. According to her, Bryan’s

friends, including Defendant, were involved in a fight in the club and got kicked

out.1 Defendant was hit during the fight. Gavin left also but was not involved in

the fight. Bryan followed them and was upset that Angel went back into the club.

The two ended up arguing. Angel said she was pushed and fell. The victim and a

girl helped her up. The victim told Bryan not to touch Angel. A group came out

of nowhere and were fighting, and she did not know who it was. Angel then stated

that Bryan got involved and was pushed. The victim asked Angel for her phone

because he was going to call her friend to pick her up. As Angel got her phone,

shots were fired, and the victim fell. She did not see who fired the shots. It

sounded like it was far away. Angel indicated Bryan, Gavin, the victim, and a girl

had been trying to help her.

At that time, the officer conducting the interview told Angel she needed to

be honest because she could be charged later, and she knew more than what she

was reporting. The officer asked Angel who would take care of her kids if she

went to prison and told her she was leaving out details of what occurred. Angel

then admitted that Bryan pushed her, and the victim saw it. The victim pushed

both Bryan and Gavin. When Gavin was pushed, a fight broke out. Angel was not

sure if the victim was involved in the fight. The officer told her that police knew

who fired the shot, and Angel said she did not know who did. Angel stated she did

1
Angel identified Bryan’s friend as Tyler, and she did not know his last name.

9

not see Devin where the incident occurred. Devin wore a white shirt and jeans at

that time.

Sergeant Benjamin Suire went to Devin’s residence shortly after the

shooting, and the Vermillion Parish Sheriff’s Department was already there. When

police arrived, Devin was speaking to his mother in the shed/building behind their

home. Devin agreed to speak to Lafayette police. Devin’s dark colored SUV and

the outbuilding where he was located were both secured. Permission to search was

granted by Devin’s father, who owned the vehicle. Nothing relevant was located.

Sergeant Suire interviewed Defendant. Defendant described the incident

involving Bryan and Angel. He then admitted he was in an altercation that

involved pushing. Defendant said he got pushed and tried to run away. After that,

his uncle picked him up, and he went to his uncle’s house. He told police that no

one else left with him. Defendant was asked if he knew most of his friends named

him as the shooter. Sergeant Suire then asked, “[W]hat happened with that?”

Defendant responded, “I guess I got scared. I never seen [sic] myself doing

something like that. That’s not me at all. I guess being there were so many more

people than us, I just when, after somebody tried to hit me I reacted. It just

happened.” “It wasn’t like I like oh I’m trying to rob you . . . oh or I just want to

kill you. No, not at all.” Defendant then stated he threw the gun, which was a 9-

millimeter Taurus, in the river somewhere. 2 Defendant mentioned self-defense.

He then stated, “I fucked up the rest of my life for this stupid shit.”

2
Steven Richardson, an expert in firearms identification, testified the shell casing found at
the scene was fired from a 9-millimeter, and bullet fragments recovered from the victim were
consistent with a 9 millimeter Luger ARX copper polymer bullet.

10

Defendant reported the gun had been in Gavin’s Tahoe, and he did not

understand how he got the gun during the altercation. Defendant cried after being

told he was charged with second degree murder, and the charges were serious

because someone died. According to Defendant, he wore jeans and a short-

sleeved, gray shirt to the bar.

Sergeant Suire testified that he left the interview room, and Detective

Maldonado advised he was going to speak to Defendant.3 Sergeant Suire spoke to

Defendant again on August 16, 2017. There was an attempt to clarify where

Defendant disposed of the gun. However, no gun was ever found.

When Sergeant Suire told Defendant his friends indicated he was the

shooter, Sergeant Suire did not know who had in fact identified Defendant.

Sergeant Suire acknowledged that Defendant never specifically stated he pulled a

gun and shot Christon.

Detective Norman Maldonado discussed what Gavin wore that night,

indicating he was clad in a black shirt, blue jeans, and ball cap, and stated he had

approximately shoulder length, dark brown hair. Gavin had informed police there

was an altercation, a shot was fired, and his brother drove off in a dark SUV and

left him at the scene. He said Gavin “kind of” matched the description of the

shooter. Police were looking for Devin, and Gavin called Devin and told him

police needed to speak to him.

Detective Maldonado prepared a photographic lineup to present to Russell

Dugas and Blair Blanchard. The two had been sitting on the tailgate of Dugas’

truck at the time of the offense and were not “connected to the group.” Gavin was

included in the line-up. Dugas selected Gavin from the lineup at 4:02 a.m. on

3
When Sergeant Suire left the interview room, he did not turn off the recording system.

11

August 12, 2017, as the suspect. Blanchard also picked Gavin. Detective

Maldonado was given information that led him to prepare another photographic

lineup, and this lineup included a photo of Defendant. Blanchard stared at a photo

in the second lineup, which occurred at 6:11 a.m., but indicated she did not see the

suspect. Dugas selected Defendant at 6:50 a.m.

Detective Maldonado was asked about State’s Exhibit 23 video footage from

Reve Coffee Shop on the date of the offense. While viewing the footage, Detective

Maldonado testified that Gavin was wearing a black shirt, a black hat, and jeans

and had long, black hair. He had on the same clothes when he was interviewed by

police. Devin wore a long-sleeved, white t-shirt, jeans, and white shoes on the

video. Moreover, Devin wore a long, white shirt when he was interviewed by

police. Detective Maldonado also identified Defendant as wearing a white shirt

and jeans. Blanchard was seen walking by in a white shirt. Additional footage

from Reve showed the group at the intersection near the bar, and individuals were

identified by Detective Maldonado. Detective Maldonado testified the dark SUV

left the lot at 1:25:48.

Detective Maldonado was questioned about a “10-minute dead space on the

video” of Defendant’s interview. 4 Detective Maldonado believed his interview

was captured on video. He described his interview as follows:

A. Yes. Basically, in summary, he explained that he had gone
downtown and that - - I asked him about the shooting. Basically, I
asked him, did you shoot Christon Chaisson. And he said he had got
into a fight, and he pulled his - - pulled his gun out from his waist and
...

4
This occurred during a thunderstorm and power failure. Thus, the CD of the interview
could not be viewed until the data thereon was extracted by the FBI.

12

And I said, and you what. And he said, I shot. I said, you shot?
(Demonstrating).

....

THE WITNESS: Okay. I have, in my report, that I spoke to Mr.
Benoit. I asked Mr. Benoit if he shot the victim. Mr. Benoit stated he
pulled the gun from his waistband and pulled the trigger. Mr. Benoit
advised that he was surrounded by people and felt scared.

At first, Defendant stated he did not know where he got the gun from. He

then said he got it from Devin’s vehicle and that he had brought it with him.

Defendant advised the gun was in a waterway.

On cross-examination, Detective Maldonado testified regarding Defendant’s

statement:

Q. All right. Yesterday, you said he shot. Is that what you’re
referring to?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. Yes. He shot, yes.

Q. But he didn’t say anything like, I - - I shot Mr. Chaisson. He
just said he shot. Right?

A. When - - He didn’t say that, but my question prior - - prior to
that, was, I asked Mr. Benoit if he shot the victim. To which, then, he
said - - he stated that he pulled a gun from his waistband and pulled
the trigger.

Detective Maldonado testified that Bryan was not investigated as the

shooter. Although Blanchard identified Gavin as the shooter or said the shooter

had long hair, the first suspect was Devin, who left in a dark SUV. Detective

Maldonado then testified, “[A]s we saw in the video, yesterday, that dark SUV left

prior to the shooting.” He subsequently stated, the totality of the circumstances

13

indicated that Devin’s SUV left before the shooting. Detective Maldonado

reiterated that Devin left the scene and was located in a shed talking to his mother.

Detective Maldonado was asked about the lineups:

Q. Okay. Detective Maldonado, if you would, show me the long-
haired shaggy guy up there, with hair down to his shoulders.

....

A. I believe the question was to show you the shaggy-haired or the
long-haired? I’m sorry?

Q. The -- Down to his shoulders. Yeah. Which one?

A. Neither one of them.

Q. Now, you were able -- You interviewed Gavin the night of the
shooting, didn’t you?

A. That is correct.

Q. I think you testified to that, earlier. Did he look like that
(indicating)?

A. No, ma’am. No, ma’am, he didn’t.

Q. Was his hair anything like this, other than the color?

....

THE WITNESS: No, ma’am.

....

Q. Was it - - Was his hair like this (indicating)?

A. No, ma’am.

Q. How was it different?

A. At the time of that night, it was long and to his shoulders, as we
saw in the video.

Q. Okay. So the black-shirt guy, with the baseball cap backwards,
and the hair down to here (indicating), that was Gavin on the night of
the shooting?

14

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay. So he didn’t look like this (indicating).

A. No.

Q. Now, looking at Tyler Benoit, how was - - Did he look like that
(indicating)?

A. Well, the beard is - - was a little bit more prominent. The hair
was longer and more shaggy and out past the ears, coming down.

Q. Okay. But not as long as Gavin’s? Is that fair to say?

A. Correct.

Detective Maldonado did not have a discussion with Blanchard regarding

the identification of Gavin, and she did not tell him Gavin was the shooter. At

some point, he was aware she said someone named Tyler was the shooter.

According to Detective Maldonado, police did not interview the other people

assisting Angel at the scene, as they never came forward.

Gavin testified regarding events leading up to the offense. His interview

with police was played for the jury. Gavin told police he went with Devin to Grant

Street Dancehall but was going to leave with Bryan. Defendant argued with Devin

right before they left. Defendant wanted to leave with Devin, but Devin did not

want him to. Gavin did not know who Defendant left with. Devin was driving a

dark SUV. Bryan and Angel got into an argument, and the victim approached

them. Gavin walked up and said he would calm them down. The victim got

aggressive with Gavin. Gavin backed up and grabbed Bryan. A fight started, and

it lasted about forty-five seconds. A shot was then fired. According to Gavin,

Devin would have been leaving or had left before the shooting, and Devin was

never near the victim. Gavin stated he did not know where Defendant was at that

time. The officer informed Gavin that multiple witnesses said Devin was present

15

and talking to the victim. Gavin indicated he thought Devin was wearing white

shoes, jeans, and a blue shirt, but he was not certain. Gavin said Devin did not

own a gun. Gavin described Defendant’s hair and said Defendant was wearing

jeans and a white t-shirt, and he had a goatee. If Devin had facial hair, it was a

light stubble.

Gavin told police he did not see Defendant with a gun. He additionally

stated Defendant could have been arguing with the victim. Gavin told police he

did not see the shooting. The officer then told Gavin the victim died. Next, Gavin

said he may have gotten into a fight with the victim, but he never punched anyone.

Gavin was asked who got in the victim’s face. Gavin then stated the victim tried to

punch him, and Gavin threw a punch and missed the victim. Gavin then indicated

that the way the officer was making it seem, Defendant was definitely around.

Gavin discussed the phone call he made to Devin while at the scene and in the

presence of police officers. The officer told Gavin there were cameras in the area.

Gavin then said Defendant could have been there, but he was not remembering.

Gavin then stated Defendant was always in a white shirt, and Defendant “is the

best bet.” However, he did not see who shot the victim. Gavin then stated that if

Bryan was not next to him, it could only have been Defendant. Gavin said he was

not going to say he was one hundred percent positive it was Defendant, but it

looked that way to him. Gavin subsequently remembered Defendant being there

when he turned around. He guessed the victim went after Defendant next. Gavin

then stated he was starting to realize he remembered more of what happened and

cried. He did not recall seeing the gunshot. The last thing he remembered was

Defendant walking away. Gavin was adamant he did not see who shot the victim.

16

The first officer to question Gavin left the room, and a second officer

entered the interview room. Gavin told the second officer that Devin may not have

left before the shooting, but he should have been in the vehicle already. Gavin

gave details consistent with those he had given to the first officer regarding the

events leading up to the fight with the victim. Gavin then said he remembered

Defendant being there and believed Defendant pushed the victim. The victim

swung or pushed toward Defendant, and Gavin got between them and tried to push

Defendant back. The victim then swung at Gavin. Someone grabbed Gavin and

pulled him backwards. The victim then walked past Gavin. When Gavin turned

around, a shot was fired. As Gavin turned around, Defendant was walking in the

opposite direction, and the victim was still on his feet but then fell. Gavin said

there was no way Defendant was in the vehicle with Devin. While Gavin was with

police at the scene, he spoke to Devin by phone, telling him police wanted to speak

to him. Gavin then clarified that he had information regarding Defendant’s

presence that he had not provided to the other officer during the first part of his

interview. Gavin then stated he believed it was Defendant who shot the victim,

and he saw Defendant there prior to shots being fired.

During his testimony, Gavin pointed out Defendant on a video. He agreed

he changed his story when he spoke to Detective Maldonado as opposed to

Detective White. Gavin was subsequently questioned as follows:

Q. Why did you change your story?

A. She definitely seemed to play a big part of it.

Q. Who did?

A. She put - - The detective. She put words in my mouth.

Q. Okay. Okay.

17

A. Because I just told the same story twice, except with two
different names.

Q. Okay.

A. It went from Bryan to Benoit, for some reason.

Q. Okay.

A. Even though I know it was Bryan. That, whenever I got
punched, I was breaking him and Bryan up from fighting.

Q. Not Tyler?

A. Not Tyler.

Q. Okay.

A. And, then, somebody came over my left shoulder. But I don’t
remember who that is. Because I know, if I would’ve knew [sic] who
it was, I’d have been right there, the same way I was with Bryan.

Q. And you don’t think Tyler had anything to do with this
shooting, do you?

A. I don’t believe. Because I - - Like I said, I would’ve been right
there, just like I was with Bryan.

Gavin testified he did not recall anything about the person that shot the

victim. He further testified that the first interviewer “put the idea of Benoit in my

head, I guess. Because I don’t remember - - I just remember a white t-shirt. But I

don’t remember a shooting.”

Russell Ashton Dugas testified that he and Blanchard did not drink that

night. He identified people he recognized in a video. He testified there was a

group of guys yelling by a black SUV. The guy in the black shirt and one in a

white t-shirt were the most upset. One of the guys at the black SUV darted back

toward the club. Dugas let the group know, and the group brought him back. A

couple of minutes later, Dugas saw the victim kneeling down by a girl. The guys

18

at the SUV started yelling at the victim. The victim said he was making sure the

girl was okay and asked if they knew the girl. The guys then ran over to the

victim. “The black t-shirt - - short black-sleeved t-shirt and the short-sleeved white

t-shirt guys went over to him to see what was going on. And they, like - - were

kind of, like, yelling at him, saying, like leave her alone, don’t touch her, leave her

alone.” “[T]he black t-shirt guy,” Defendant, and the victim were throwing

punches. The guy wearing the black t-shirt was thrown to the ground. Thereafter,

“the defendant walks around . . . like, circles around, runs around to the other side

of this car, where we’re standing.” Dugas testified that he next heard a gun go off

but did not see the moment the shot was fired. He stated, “And I look, and I see - -

As his arm’s going down, I see the gun in his hand.” “[A]s I looked over, I noticed

the gun going down.” According to Dugas, the guy in the white t-shirt had the

gun. He saw the black SUV drive away after the shooting. It looked like the

shooter ran in the direction of the black SUV.

State’s Exhibit 29, body-worn camera footage from Officer Asher Reaux,

was played for the jury. The footage showed Blanchard and Dugas talking to the

officer about what occurred. Dugas described a fight and said one of the guys

involved was wearing a white shirt and had long, bushy, black hair and a short

beard. Blanchard said she saw the shooter, and he was the guy wearing white who

had a beard. The shooter then got into a dark gray Suburban. According to Dugas,

one of the shooter’s friends wore a mint green, long-sleeved shirt, and another

wore a black shirt.

Dugas testified the mint green shirt was actually a white, long-sleeved shirt,

and that person was not the shooter. According to Dugas, that person was by the

SUV the entire time. Dugas indicated Defendant wore a short-sleeved, white t-

19

shirt. Dugas was shown a photograph in court and testified that the person shown

was not the shooter, but he was involved in the fight and wore a black t-shirt. In

describing his selection during the first lineup, Dugas testified that he knew the

person he selected was one of the guys involved, and he was the one wearing the

black shirt who was involved in the fight. He indicated he was told to identify

anyone that was involved, and the form asked him to do the same. 5 Dugas testified

that the form did not ask for any specifics, and there was more than one person

involved. According to Dugas, he was not asked to identify who the shooter was,

and he never told police the first lineup photo he selected was the shooter. Dugas

addressed the second lineup, testifying he selected the shooter from that lineup,

and he was absolutely certain of it.

Dugas testified that after he slept, memories came back. The next day, he

recalled seeing the gun, although he indicated in his original statement to police

that he did not see it.

Dugas was questioned about the lineups as follows:

Q. . . . I thought you told me that you weren’t sure about what they
wanted. They just wanted the suspect. They didn’t want the shooter.
Isn’t that what you told me?

A. I mean, I didn’t ask questions. Like, I was kind of just doing
what they were asking me to do. I knew I was there because I had
witnessed a shooting. I knew I was there because I saw - - I witnessed
a shooting, I saw a fight break out, and I saw two people fighting
against a victim, who did end up getting shot.

Q. Okay.

A. And, whenever they gave me the lineup, I recognized one of
them being whatever his name is.

The “Lafayette Police Department Line-Up Identification Form” states, “SHOULD
5

YOU RECOGNIZE A SUSPECT IN THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LINE-UP, PLEASE CIRCLE
THE CORRESPONDING NUMBER LISTED BELOW FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.”

20

....

Q. So Ms. White says: “Okay. You - - If you saw a picture of the
guy who shot the victim, do you think you could recognize him?” And
you said: “I’m pretty sure I could.”

A. (Indicated “Yes”).

Q. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct? And, then, after that - - after that statement, you
went and you identified Gavin White as the shooter.

A. (Indicated “Yes”).

Q. Isn’t that what you did?

A. Yes. Because the shooter was not on the page. But I recognized
Gavin White on the page. I recognized Gavin White, who was
involved. And, the second round, I did recognize the shooter.

Dugas testified regarding the shooter, “I saw him run - - He ran towards the

direction of the SUV. And I turned around and pushed Blair to go towards mine.

And then, I heard all their doors close, and he wasn’t around.” He then testified

the guy in the black shirt ran in the opposite direction. Dugas reviewed his

statement to police and indicated Defendant got into the SUV. Dugas then

indicated the shooter’s hair was bushy, and he had a bushy beard. The guy in the

black shirt had long, black hair.

State’s Exhibit 32, Dugas’ written statement, was made at the scene. In that

statement, Dugas said he saw the assailant pull the gun from his pants and shoot

the victim. Dugas testified, “I saw him, like, going down and, like, going back

towards his pants with it.”

Dugas was interviewed by Officer White. During that interview, Dugas

gave his version of the events leading up to the shooting. He stated the shooter

21

was Gavin; had longer, bushy hair; wore a white t-shirt and jeans; and had a

scruffy kind of beard. He indicated the shooter’s friend was in a dark shirt, and the

guy with the white shirt was the shooter. Dugas said he did not see the guy pull

out the gun, but he heard a gunshot. The guy in the white shirt had the gun

because the guy in the black shirt had just fallen to the ground, and it could not

have been him. The SUV then left. However, he did not see the shooter get in the

SUV.

Dugas testified he saw the guy in the black shirt at the police department that

night, and that guy was not the shooter. He stated he did not see the shot go off,

but saw the gun go down. Dugas made an in-court identification of Defendant as

the shooter.

Devin White testified that Gavin and Defendant did not leave with him. He

got into an argument with Defendant because Defendant opened the door before

the vehicle was stopped. Gavin broke it up. Devin testified that he did not see a

shooting, and he did not shoot anyone. Moreover, Defendant did not ride home

with him. He was on the interstate by the Rayne exit when he learned there had

been a shooting. He was wearing long sleeves and jeans on the night at issue.

Gavin had hair down to his shoulders at that time.

Blair Blanchard testified that a person in the parking lot near an SUV was

punching trees and light posts, and the people he was with referred to him as Tyler.

The friends yelled his name trying to get him to leave. He wore a white t-shirt and

jeans and had a shaggy beard. His hair was “[s]haggy [and] [l]onger.” It was

above his shoulders. Blanchard then testified that Tyler shot the victim. The

shooter pulled a gun from his waistband during a fight that involved the victim.

The shooter then ran back toward Dugas’ truck. She did not recall seeing the

22

shooter get into the SUV. Blanchard was asked about her written statement in

which she stated the shooter ran to a late model SUV. However, she testified that

she did not actually see him get in the vehicle and admitted she was changing her

story. Blanchard recognized Defendant in court. She remembered selecting the

third photograph in the first lineup and testified she was not confident when she

made the selection. She focused on the “facial hair, shaggy hair, I think, is what

really got me.” She recalled saying she was not sure about her selection. She saw

the second lineup, but the shooter’s hair was a lot longer than the people in the

pictures. Blanchard was then shown a video clip and identified Defendant as the

person wearing a white shirt and the person who shot Christon. The guy wearing

the black shirt who was present at the police department was not the shooter.

Blair Blanchard’s police interview, State’s Exhibit 30, was played for the

jury. At that time, she indicated a white male in a white shirt started arguing with

the people who approached the girl. The guy in the white shirt pushed the victim,

and a fight broke out. The guy wearing the white shirt then took a gun from his

waistband and shot once. He then put the gun back and took off alone to an SUV.

According to Blanchard, the suspect and two other guys were there. There was a

male wearing a black shirt and a cap, and he had hair to his shoulders. Blanchard

reported the suspect was called Tyler. The guy with long hair was still present

when police came. The suspect had “longer hair as well and a beard as well.” She

was asked if his hair was to his shoulders, and she agreed.

Blanchard was questioned about the length of the shooter’s hair. She

indicated his hair was “about down to his shoulders.” However, her statement

indicated it was down to his shoulders. She admitted she selected Gavin in the first

lineup. There was a discussion about Blanchard identifying Defendant with his

23

mask on without seeing his face.6 Blanchard was shown her statement wherein she

in fact indicated the shooter ran toward an SUV. She testified that she did not say

he got into it. Blanchard was confident Defendant was the shooter. In her

interview, she described a male wearing a black shirt, black hat, and having hair to

his shoulders, and a beard. According to Blanchard, she was not describing the

shooter at that time.

In brief to this court, Defendant suggests that in-court identification by

Dugas is suspect because Dugas’ memory developed after he slept, and he initially

identified Gavin as the shooter. Defendant also suggests Blanchard’s in-court

identification is questionable because she initially identified Gavin as the shooter,

and she failed to identify Defendant as the shooter in the second photographic

lineup. Additionally, Blanchard hearing Defendant’s name at the scene proves

nothing more than his presence before the shooting. Defendant further argues that

the fact that Devin fled from the scene lends credibility to Dugas’ and Blanchard’s

identification of Gavin as the shooter. Defendant states: “Why would Devin White

refuse to return to the crime scene even after he learned police were looking for

him? Perhaps he needed to get rid of the gun Gavin used to shoot Mr. Chaisson.”

Defendant next attacks his confession and statements made by others to

police, arguing that police interrogation techniques resulted in statements that were

unreliable and inconsistent. He contends he denied shooting the victim until he

was lied to. He alleges misstatements by police caused him to change his story.

Defendant contends Bryan changed his story as well due to permissible threats by

police. Moreover, Gavin testified that police attempted to put words in his mouth.

6
After Blanchard testified that she recognized Defendant, he was asked to “take the
facemask off and make sure.”

24

Meanwhile, missing witnesses and possible suspects remain at large. Defendant

suggests his confession was littered with doubtful words like “I guess.”

Furthermore, the more specific statement he gave to Detective Maldonado is

questionable because police included conclusions and conjecture in their reports

that misstated what witnesses said. According to Defendant, because the State

failed to negate the reasonable hypothesis that Gavin or another individual who

fled the scene shot Christon, the State failed to satisfy its burden of proof.

Additionally, Defendant alleges that because the State failed to negate the

reasonable hypothesis that Defendant’s confession was the product of a deceptive

interrogation technique used against a scared and confused young man, the State

failed to satisfy its burden of proof.

Detective Maldonado testified that Defendant said he shot Christon. It is

also obvious from Detective Suire’s interview of Defendant that Defendant shot

Christon. Bryan told police Defendant was the shooter, Gavin believed Defendant

fired the shots, and Blanchard testified that the group present in the parking lot

prior to the shooting called the shooter Tyler, Defendant’s name. Additionally,

Dugas picked Defendant as the shooter in the second photographic lineup

presented to him, and he and Blanchard made in-court identifications of Defendant

as the shooter.

Testimony and video evidence regarding what pertinent persons present

wore support the conclusion that Defendant was the shooter. Gavin, Bryan, and

Defendant were involved in the altercation with Christon. Bryan was not

suspected of shooting Christon. Evidence indicated Gavin wore a black shirt and

Defendant wore a short-sleeved, white t-shirt. Testimony from Bryan, Gavin, and

Dugas suggested that Devin, who wore a long-sleeved, white shirt, was not

25

involved in the altercation at issue and was not the shooter. Moreover, Dugas and

Blanchard testified that the guy wearing the black shirt, Gavin, did not shoot

Christon despite their selection of his picture in the initial lineup that was presented

to them.

A review of Gavin’s interview with police, State’s Exhibit 25, and his lineup

photo, State’s Exhibit 22(D), reveal his hair was much shorter in the picture used

in the photographic lineup presented to Dugas and Blanchard. Additionally,

Defendant’s hair was longer in his interview with police, State’s Exhibit 20, than in

the lineup photograph used by police, State’s Exhibit 22(E).

The jury heard the testimony regarding police interview techniques and

testimony from witnesses who recanted their identifications of Defendant as the

shooter, specifically Bryan and Gavin. The jury was also aware that Dugas and

Blanchard identified Gavin in the initial lineup. Credibility is a determination left

to the jury, and it was not irrational for the jury to accept Dugas’ and Blanchard’s

explanations regarding their initial identification of Gavin. Moreover, there was no

indication from witnesses to the shooting that the people who approached Angel at

the same time as Christon were involved in the shooting. Based on the evidence

and testimony presented, we find the State negated every reasonable probability of

misidentification.

This conclusion is supported by State v. Martin, 15-77 (La.App. 5 Cir.

10/14/15), 177 So.3d 790, writ denied, 15-2121 (La. 11/18/16), 210 So.3d 283.

Therein, the defendant challenged the testimony of two eyewitnesses, James

Munson and Darkus Bellard, who identified him as the perpetrator of a murder.

The defendant argued these eyewitnesses were not credible due to their criminal

history and personal relationships with the victim. He alleged Munson was good

26

friends with the victim and had a personal interest in seeing someone punished for

his friend’s death. The defendant further argued that Munson had a criminal

history and was serving a ten-year sentence when he changed his testimony again

to identify the defendant as the shooter. The defendant alleged Bellard’s testimony

was unreliable because she served as a paid confidential informant and was under

arrest for another matter when she gave her statement to police. The defendant

also claimed the details and statements provided by these witnesses were

inconsistent. He argued Munson wrote a letter recanting his statement identifying

the defendant as the shooter. The defendant also complained that Bellard’s

testimony was contrary to Munson’s because she claimed she heard arguing right

before the victim was shot. The defendant further argued there were

inconsistencies between Bellard’s statement to the police, her grand jury

testimony, and her court testimony. Specifically, defendant complained she

changed her story about the direction she was coming from at the time of the

shooting and whether a third person got into the car with the defendant. She also

told detectives she heard defendant say, “‘[h]e ain’t gonna live to take the stand’”

prior to the shooting, but at trial she denied telling this to the officers. Id. at 797.

The fifth circuit addressed the defendant’s claims:

In State v. Cowart, [01-1178 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/26/02), 815
So.2d 275, writ denied, 02-1457 (La. 5/9/03), 843 So.2d 387], there
was no physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime and a
single witness identified the defendant as the perpetrator of a
shooting. At trial, the defendant attacked the reliability of the
eyewitness because she was a convicted felon, had been under
psychiatric care, had initially lied to the police, gave a description that
did not match the defendant, had perjured herself during motion
hearings and changed her story about the crime scene and the number
of shots she heard. Despite this lengthy list of deficiencies, this Court
held it was within the jury’s discretion to believe the witness’
testimony. Id. at 285.

27

Recently, in [State v.] Griffin, [14-251 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/15),
169 So.3d 473], this Court determined the evidence was sufficient to
support the defendant’s conviction for second degree murder based on
the testimony of a single eyewitness. No physical evidence existed to
link the defendant to the murder. The eyewitness was the victim’s
childhood friend and provided a statement identifying the defendant
as one of three shooters two days after the murder. He did not know
the defendant’s name, but knew him from the neighborhood. The
eyewitness did not testify because he died of multiple gunshot wounds
prior to trial. Therefore, the jury only heard the eyewitness’ taped
statement and grand jury testimony. Various witnesses pointed out
inconsistencies in the eyewitness’ statement regarding his location
when the shooting occurred. The eyewitness purchased beer prior to
the shooting and had a conviction for a third offense driving while
intoxicated.

Despite the lack of physical evidence linking defendant to the
murder in the present matter, two eyewitnesses identified him as the
shooter. Mr. Munson told police he saw defendant’s face during the
shooting and he identified defendant in a photographic lineup the day
after the murder. Mr. Munson knew defendant prior to the shooting.
Furthermore, it was not irrational for the jury to accept Mr. Munson’s
explanation as to why he wrote the letter recanting his initial
statement to the police. Mr. Munson did not describe the shooter as
having “dreads” to his shoulder at any other time. Defendant did not
have long dreadlocks in the photographic lineup presented to and
identified by Mr. Munson.

Furthermore, Ms. Bellard testified she saw defendant shoot Mr.
Banks. She was afraid, had been placed in a witness protection
program and did not want to testify at trial. As stated, a positive
identification by only one witness is sufficient to support a conviction.
See Cowart, supra.

In addition to the eyewitness testimony, defendant’s close
friend, Robert Causey, placed defendant near the scene of the murder
when it occurred. Defendant’s alibi witness, Danielle Lathers,
provided a conflicting story claiming defendant went to her home
after the Elm Street party. Ms. Winzy testified defendant was like
family to her. She reluctantly acknowledged that she saw defendant
bum a shirt, socks and shoes shortly after the murder outside the
apartment building on Salem Street.

We find the jury made credibility determinations and chose to
believe one or both of the eyewitnesses to the shooting over the
testimony of defendant’s alibi witnesses. A review of the record
reflects the jury’s credibility determinations were rational. Thus,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,

28

we find the State proved defendant committed the second degree
murder of Brian Banks beyond a reasonable doubt.

Id. at 797–98.

For these reasons, we find Defendant’s conviction should be affirmed.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO

In his second assignment of error, Defendant contends the trial court erred in

imposing the maximum sentences inasmuch as he had no prior felonies, was a

family man, had a job, and was compliant with house arrest for approximately four

years. Moreover, there was no evidence of pre-planning or malice in the events

leading to Christon’s death. Defendant was charged with second degree murder

and convicted of manslaughter.

Sentences within the statutory sentencing range can be
reviewed for constitutional excessiveness. State v. Sepulvado, 367
So.2d 762 (La.1979). The trial court has wide discretion in the
imposition of sentence within the statutory limits and such sentence
shall not be set aside as excessive absent a manifest abuse of
discretion. State v. Barling, 00–1241, 00-1591, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir.
1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035, 1042–43 (citing State v. Etienne, 99-192
(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99), 746 So.2d 124, writ denied, 00–165 (La.
6/30/00), 765 So.2d 1067).

....

“[Louisiana] Const. art I, § 20, guarantees that, ‘[n]o law shall
subject any person to cruel or unusual punishment.’ ” Barling, 779
So.2d at 1042–43. “To constitute an excessive sentence, the reviewing
court must find the penalty so grossly disproportionate to the severity
of the crime as to shock our sense of justice or that the sentence makes
no measurable contribution to acceptable penal goals and is, therefore,
nothing more than a needless imposition of pain and suffering.” Id. at
1042 (citing State v. Campbell, 404 So.2d 1205 (La.1981)).

The relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad
sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been
more appropriate. Barling, 779 So.2d at 1042–43 (citing State v.
Cook, 95-2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957, cert denied, 519 U.S.
1043, 117 S.Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996)). In reviewing the
defendant’s sentence, the appellate court should consider the nature of
the crime, the nature and background of the offender, and the

29

sentences imposed for similar crimes. State v. Lisotta, 98-648
(La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 57 (citing State v. Telsee, 425
So.2d 1251 (La.1983)), writ denied, 99–433 (La. 6/25/99), 745 So.2d
1183. “[T]he appellate court must be mindful that the trial court is in
the best position to consider the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances of each case. . . .” State v. Williams, 02-707 (La.App. 3
Cir. 3/5/03), 839 So.2d 1095, 1100 (citing Cook, 674 So.2d 957).

State v. Rexrode, 17-457, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/15/17), 232 So.3d 1251, 1253-

54 (second, third, and fourth alterations in original). “Generally, maximum

sentences are reserved for the most serious violation of the offense and the worst

type of offender.” State v. Herbert, 12-228, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/13/12), 94 So.3d

916, 920, writ denied, 12-1641 (La. 2/8/13), 108 So.3d 78.

Defendant called four witnesses to testify at his sentencing hearing. The

first was Dylan Lemaire, who employed Defendant as an electrical helper. Dylan

indicated Defendant was an exemplary worker.

The next witness was Kelli Duhon. Kelli was engaged to Defendant. They

lived together and had a daughter who was almost three years old. Duhon

addressed Defendant’s relationship with their daughter and the impact his absence

would have on the child’s life. Duhon then testified that Defendant supported his

family. Duhon noted Defendant was not aggressive and was a kindhearted person.

Tori Garner, Defendant’s mother, subsequently testified. She addressed

Defendant’s personality in high school, noting he was voted friendliest student in

his class and did not get into fights. Tori also indicated Defendant was a good

father. Thereafter, Defendant apologized to the victim’s family.

The State called Kelly Chaisson, the wife of the victim. She testified

regarding the impact her husband’s death had on her and her son, who was three

years old at the time of his father’s death. She requested imposition of a maximum

sentence. The State also called Phillip Alexander, a friend of the victim. He

30

addressed his relationship with the victim and the victim’s impact on his family

and the community. Shanena Chaisson, the victim’s sister, was the next person

called by the State. She addressed her relationship with her brother and his

relationship with his son.

In argument to the trial court, defense counsel noted Defendant was nineteen

years old at the time of the offense.

The judge mentioned the following when imposing Defendant’s sentences:

So I have -- I have considered all of the issues that have been brought
up. And I do make the following findings regarding the sentence in
this case:

I do note, as [defense counsel] said, that you have no prior
convictions. And I know that you were young at the time you
committed the offense. But you stand convicted of killing another
human being.

The crime of manslaughter is a crime of violence. You used
actual violence and a firearm during the commission of this offense.

As we can see, your actions have had a significant impact on
the victim’s family, and, to a large extent, you have not accepted
responsibility for your actions in this case.

Therefore, I think it is appropriate and I do sentence you, for the
crime of manslaughter, to 40 years at hard labor. And, for the crime of
obstruction of justice, to 20 years at hard labor. But these sentence are
to run concurrently with each other. And you will receive credit for
any time you’ve served on this charge.

Manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment for up to forty years at hard

labor. La.R.S. 14:31. Defendant received the maximum sentence for this offense.

Defendant alleges this sentence is excessive. He notes he was nineteen years old at

the time of the offense, he was engaged, he had a two-year-old daughter when

sentenced, he had an established work history, he provided for his family, and he

had no history of fighting or violent behavior. Defendant cites to cases wherein

31

twenty-five year sentences for manslaughter occurring during robberies were

imposed and affirmed on appeal.

Defendant believes that his case does not involve the intent or callous action

common in cases wherein the maximum sentence has been imposed. Given State

v. Banks, 16-34 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/16), 194 So.3d 1224, and State v. Wright, 10-

577 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 61 So.3d 88, writ denied, 11-560 (La. 9/30/11), 71

So.3d 283, which both involved deaths occurring during the commission of

felonies, Defendant believes his case should be remanded for imposition of a

sentence “well less than 25 years of hard labor” for manslaughter.

We will now address sentences imposed in similar cases. In State v.

Sterling, 21-618, p. 1 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/22) (unpublished opinion), the defendant

was charged with second degree murder after he approached and shot the victim

and another man when the two “did square up as to take a fighting posture.” The

seventeen-year-old defendant pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to

twenty years at hard labor. This court discussed sentences imposed in

manslaughter cases:

In State v. Wright, 10-577 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 61 So.3d
88, writ denied, 11-560 (La. 9/30/11), 71 So.3d 283, the defendant,
who was fifteen years old at the time, charged with second degree
murder and armed robbery, was found guilty of manslaughter by a
jury. The defendant received twenty-five years at hard labor on the
conviction for manslaughter. He appealed the sentence as excessive
because of his youth, asserting that there was no evidence that he shot
the victim. While noting that the defendant did have an extensive
juvenile criminal history, the fifth circuit did not find the sentence
excessive under the circumstances, despite the defendant’s age.

In a majority opinion, State v. Cedars, 16-1044 (La.App. 3 Cir.
7/19/17) (unpublished opinion), writ denied, 17-1343 (La. 4/27/18),
239 So.3d 838, this court upheld a juvenile’s thirty-year sentence for
manslaughter. The juvenile, who had originally been charged with
second degree murder, pled guilty to the lesser charge of
manslaughter. In upholding the sentence, this court stated that “the

32

trial court clearly considered numerous factors in the formation of the
Defendant’s sentence, including his youth . . . and balanced those
factors against the violent nature of the offense and the Defendant’s
reduced sentencing exposure under a manslaughter plea.” Id. at 8.

In State v. Banks, 16-34 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/16) 194 So.3d
1224, a defendant who was seventeen years old at the time of the
offense pled guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of
simple robbery pursuant to a plea agreement. He was then sentenced
to twenty-five years at hard labor on the conviction for manslaughter
and three years at hard labor on the conviction for conspiracy to
commit simple robbery. The defendant then appealed, alleging that his
sentence of twenty-five years for manslaughter was excessive.
However, this court upheld the sentence, noting that the “[d]efendant
received a significant benefit from pleading guilty to manslaughter[,]”
as the evidence could have easily resulted in a conviction of first
degree murder. Id. at 1231.

Id. at p. 4.

We find that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion in imposing a

forty-year sentence for a first-time felony offender with no prior issues. Maximum

sentences are imposed for the most egregious offenses committed by the worst

type of offender. State v. Soileau, 13-772 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d

1008, writ denied, 14-452 (La. 9/26/14), 149 So.3d 261. Defendant is not the

worst type of offender, and a maximum sentence in this case makes no meaningful

contribution to acceptable penal goals. Defendant is a young family man who has

no history of crime or violence. He is likely a good candidate for rehabilitation.

Therefore, we vacate and set aside Defendant’s sentence of forty years for

manslaughter and remand to the trial court for resentencing pursuant to La.Code

Crim.P. art. 881.4(A).

Defendant also argues his sentence of twenty years is the maximum sentence

for obstruction of justice and is excessive. Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:130.1

provides:

33

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 . . . .

....

B. Whoever commits the crime of obstruction of justice shall be
subject to the following penalties:

(1) When the obstruction of justice involves a criminal
proceeding in which a sentence of death or life imprisonment may be
imposed, the offender shall be fined not more than one hundred
thousand dollars, imprisoned for not more than forty years at hard
labor, or both.

(2) When the obstruction of justice involves a criminal
proceeding in which a sentence of imprisonment necessarily at hard
labor for any period less than a life sentence may be imposed, the
offender may be fined not more than fifty thousand dollars, or
imprisoned for not more than twenty years at hard labor, or both.

The applicable sentencing range is determined by the type of investigation

and/or the offense charged. In State v. Harvey, 21-730 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/25/22),

345 So.3d 1043, writ denied, 22-953 (La. 9/20/22), 346 So.3d 803, the defendant

was acquitted of second degree murder but convicted of obstruction of justice

involving a second degree murder investigation or proceeding and sentenced to

forty years. On appeal, the defendant argued the jury acted irrationally in finding

him guilty of obstruction of justice considering that it rendered a not guilty verdict

on the charge of second degree murder, and the State would have to prove he was

responsible for the victim’s death before the jury could conclude that he obstructed

justice in the investigation of that death. The fourth circuit concluded:

Defendant’s argument is without merit. As the Louisiana Supreme
Court observed in State v. Quinn, 19-00647, p. 9 (La. 9/1/20), 340
So.3d 829, [835] (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 141 S.Ct.
1406, 209 L.Ed.2d 139 (2021):

One can be found guilty of obstructing a murder
investigation although the investigation does not

34

ultimately result in a conviction for murder. . . . See State
v. McKnight, 98-1799, pp. 13-14 (La. App. 1 Cir.
6/25/99), 739 So.2d 343, 352-353, writ denied, 99-2226
(La. 2/25/00), 755 So.2d 247. To find otherwise would be
to reward those who more successfully obstruct justice
while punishing those who obstruct with less success.

Id. at 1050 (second alteration in original).

In State v. Manuel, 21-273 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/6/22), 337 So.3d 967, the

defendant was tried for second degree murder, attempted second degree murder,

obstruction of justice, and carrying a concealed firearm. The jury could not reach a

verdict on the count of second degree murder. On the count of attempted second

degree murder, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of attempted manslaughter, and

on the count of obstruction of justice, the jury returned a verdict of attempted

obstruction of justice. The trial judge also found the defendant guilty of the

misdemeanor count of carrying a concealed firearm. In addressing the

excessiveness of the defendant’s sentence for attempted obstruction of justice, the

fourth circuit stated:

In this case, the criminal proceeding in which defendant was charged
with obstruction of justice involved a second degree murder charge,
for which a sentence of life is mandatory. Consequently, the
maximum possible sentence to be imposed on defendant was forty
years for obstruction of justice, and twenty years for attempted
obstruction of justice.

Id. at 975, n.5.

In State v. Yelverton, 12-745 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/21/13), 156 So.3d 53, writ

denied, 13-629 (La. 10/11/13), 123 So.3d 1217, the defendant was charged with

second degree murder and convicted of manslaughter. He was also convicted of

obstruction of justice. In discussing his sentence for obstruction of justice, the fifth

circuit stated:

35

With regard to the obstruction of justice conviction, at the time
of the offense, La. R.S. 14:130.1(B)(1) provided: “When the
obstruction of justice involves a criminal proceeding in which a
sentence of death or life imprisonment may be imposed, the offender
shall be fined not more than one hundred thousand dollars, imprisoned
for not more than forty years at hard labor, or both.” The defendant
was originally charged with second degree murder, which provided
for a penalty of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of
parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The defendant was
subsequently sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on the obstruction
of justice conviction. Thus, we find that the defendant’s sentence is
within the statutory limits listed above for count two.

Id. at 65.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:130.1 references a “criminal proceeding,” not

a conviction. Based on the wording of the statute and the above-cited cases,

obstruction of justice is punishable by a maximum of forty years in this case.

“This is a very lengthy sentence which indicates that obstruction of justice

involving a very serious crime, like second degree murder, is also a serious

offense.” State v. Cawthorne, 18-155, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/18), 257 So.3d

717, 726, writ denied, 18-1899 (La. 4/8/19), 267 So.3d 607.

In State v. Ray, 10-1126 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/29/11), 70 So.3d 998, the second

circuit upheld a fifteen-year sentence for obstruction of justice, which was to run

concurrently with a thirty-year sentence for manslaughter, for a defendant with a

minimal criminal history who had been tried for second degree murder.

In State v. Royal, 03-439 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/30/03), 857 So.2d 1167, writ

denied, 03-3172 (La. 3/19/04), 869 So.2d 849, the court affirmed a forty-year

maximum sentence for obstruction of justice for a defendant that threw the murder

weapon into the river after committing second degree murder.

36

In Harvey, 345 So.3d 1043, the court affirmed the defendant’s maximum

sentence for obstruction for disposing of the gun used to kill the victim and telling

police he gave it to another man.

Based on the cases cited, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion

in imposing a twenty-year sentence for obstruction of justice.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s conviction for manslaughter and his sentence for obstruction of

justice are affirmed. His sentence for manslaughter is vacated and set aside and the

case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

CONVICTION FOR MANSLAUGHTER AFFIRMED; SENTENCE
FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AFFIRMED; SENTENCE FOR
MANSLAUGHTER VACATED AND SET ASIDE AND REMANDED FOR
RESENTENCING.

37