State of Louisiana v. Andrew Chestley Mayo

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

23-183

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ANDREW CHESTLEY MAYO

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 351,109
HONORABLE WILLIAM G. BEARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JONATHAN W. PERRY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Candyce G. Perret, Jonathan W. Perry, and Wilbur L. Stiles,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Edward K. Bauman
Post Office Box 1641
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602
(337) 491-0570
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Andrew Chestley Mayo

J. Phillip Terrell, Jr.
District Attorney, Ninth Judicial District
Lea R. Hall, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Box 7358
Alexandria, Louisiana 71306
(318) 473-6650
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

PERRY, Judge.

The issue presented in this criminal appeal, one which involves a drive-by

shooting, is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the second degree

murder conviction of Andrew Chestley Mayo (“Defendant”). For the reasons set

forth below, we affirm Defendant’s conviction and sentence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 26, 2021, Defendant was charged alongside Kaitlyn Leeann

Carlino (“Ms. Carlino”), Pamela Earlene Smith (“Ms. Smith”), Tyrone Markel

Compton (“Mr. Compton”), and Terrence Armstrong (“Mr. Armstrong”), with the

first degree murder of Edwin Davidson (“Mr. Davidson”), in violation of La.R.S.

14:30; the attempted first degree murder of Leon Anderson (“Mr. Anderson”), in

violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:30; and conspiracy to commit the first degree

murder of Mr. Davidson, in violation of La.R.S. 14:26 and 14:30. On May 25, 2021,

an “Amended Indictment” was filed, charging the same individuals with the second

degree murder of Mr. Davidson, in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1; attempted second

degree murder of Mr. Anderson, in violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:30.1;

conspiracy to commit second degree murder, in violation of La.R.S. 14:26 and

14:30.1; conspiracy to commit attempted second degree murder, in violation of

La.R.S. 14:26 and 14:30.1; and conspiracy to commit assault by drive-by shooting,

in violation of La.R.S. 14:26 and 14:37.1.

On November 17, 2022, Defendant proceeded to trial solely on count one of

the indictment: the second degree murder of Mr. Davidson. On November 18, 2022,

a unanimous jury found Defendant guilty as charged. On December 8, 2022,

Defendant was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment at hard labor without

benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

Defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence.

APPELLANT’S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In his sole assignment of error, Defendant alleges: “The evidence admitted at

trial, when viewed under the Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979)

standard, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony Chestley

Mayo committed, or was a principal to, second degree murder.”

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

Defendant argues the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt he was guilty of the second degree murder of Mr. Davidson.

Specifically, Defendant contends the evidence failed to prove he “possessed the

requisite intent to be a principal to assault by drive-by shooting, and by application

of the felony murder doctrine, second degree murder.”

APPELLEE’S POSITION

The State contends it met its burden of proving Mr. Davidson was killed when

Defendant was engaged in the perpetration of an assault by drive-by shooting.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, this court reviews all appeals

for errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find no

errors patent.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Defendant was charged with second degree murder, in violation of La.R.S.

14:30.1:

A. Second degree murder is the killing of a human being:

(1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great
bodily harm; or

(2) When the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted
perpetration of … assault by drive-by shooting, …, even though he has
no intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.

2

The proper standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim

is:

whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, rehearing
denied, 444 U.S. 890, 100 S.Ct. 195, 62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979), State ex
rel. Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559 (La.1983); State v. Duncan,
420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982); State v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981).
It is the role of the fact finder to weigh the respective credibility of the
witnesses, and therefore, the appellate court should not second guess
the credibility determinations of the triers of fact beyond the sufficiency
evaluations under the Jackson standard of review. See State ex rel.
Graffagnino, 436 So.2d 559 (citing State v. Richardson, 425 So.2d
1228 (La.1983)). In order for this Court to affirm a conviction,
however, the record must reflect that the state has satisfied its burden
of proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Kennerson, 96-1518, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/97), 695 So.2d 1367, 1371.

As applied in this case, the State must prove Mr. Davidson was killed when

the offender was engaged in the perpetration of an assault by drive-by shooting. We

find the evidence presented by the State supports the conviction.

The State’s first witness, Dr. Yen Van Vo (“Dr. Vo”), an expert in the field of

forensic pathology, performed the autopsy on Mr. Davidson. Dr. Vo testified Mr.

Davidson died from a gunshot wound to the right side of his forehead, noting she

removed the bullet from his brain during the autopsy. Dr. Vo found the manner of

death for Mr. Davidson was homicide.

The State then called Shanae Henderson (“Ms. Henderson”), the mother of

the victim, Mr. Davidson. She testified that Mr. Davidson was the eldest of her three

children, was seventeen at the time he was killed, and had a son born the month after

he died. According to Ms. Henderson, she believed Mr. Davidson was at home in

bed, asleep, around 11:30 p.m., and she did not know he had left the house until Mr.

Davidson’s girlfriend texted her saying that he had been shot.

3

The State’s next witness was Sergeant Vince Deville (“Sergeant Deville”), a

ten-year veteran of the Pineville Police Department. According to Sergeant Deville,

on October 20, 2020, he responded to an initial call of shots fired near Orchard Loop,

eventually receiving information that someone may have been shot at 343 Orchard

Loop. He testified he and Officer Jared Luney entered the residence and initially

spoke with Nolan Purvis (“Purvis”) and Barron Ray (“Ray”) in the living room,

noting they were visibly upset. Sergeant Deville testified they removed both Purvis

and Ray from the house, located Mr. Davidson on the ground with a bleeding

gunshot wound, and removed two young females from a back bedroom. Sergeant

Deville noted what appeared to be several bullet holes in the front of the house.

Sergeant Deville noted they held the scene until detectives arrived, which he

suggested was no more than twenty minutes.

The State then called Sergeant Jared Bennett (“Sergeant Bennett”), a

twelve-year veteran of the Pineville Police Department who was working as a crime

scene investigator in October 2020. Sergeant Bennett photographed the crime scene

and described numerous photographs, which had already been admitted into

evidence through a joint stipulation. Sergeant Bennett noted that spent rounds were

recovered that were either .223 or 5.56mm, both common rifle calibers, in addition

to 9mm handgun rounds.

The State’s next witness was Syria Mahfouz (“Ms. Mahfouz”). She testified

that on October 20, 2020, she lived with Ms. Smith and Mr. Compton at a house on

Pisciotta Street. According to Ms. Mahfouz, on the day in question she was home

with Ms. Smith, Mr. Compton, Defendant, and Defendant’s brother, Blaine

Milliman (“Mr. Milliman”). Ms. Mahfouz testified they were all trying to obtain

Xanax in order to get high; for that reason, she texted Mr. Anderson to purchase

some pills from him. According to Ms. Mahfouz, Mr. Anderson was friends with

4

both herself and Defendant. Ms. Mahfouz testified Mr. Anderson indicated he had

pills for them to buy. According to Ms. Mahfouz, they were going to buy pills from

Mr. Anderson at a store in Wardville. She testified she went to make the purchase

with Defendant, Ms. Smith, Mr. Compton, Mr. Milliman, and Ms. Carlino. At the

store, Ms. Mahfouz testified, she and Defendant paid Mr. Anderson, who gave them

their drugs, then they left. She testified the victim, Mr. Davidson, was in the car

with Mr. Anderson. According to Ms. Mahfouz, the drug sale was exclusively

between Mr. Anderson and Defendant. She stated the drugs were packaged in a dark

cigar pack. Ms. Mahfouz testified they did not look in the pack until they were back

in the car, at which time they realized they did not get all the drugs they thought they

had purchased. Upon opening the cigar pack, they found only five Xanax and paper

that had been wadded up to feel like pills.

According to Ms. Mahfouz, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Davidson had already left

the store before the missing drugs were uncovered. While her group drove around

looking, they did not see Mr. Anderson or Mr. Davidson and instead returned to the

house on Pisciotta Street. Ms. Mahfouz testified that Mr. Compton was angry that

his money was wasted and that after they returned to the house on Pisciotta, he talked

about shooting up the house on Orchard Loop; although she testified Defendant was

in the group that discussed this shooting, she did not recall if Defendant actively

participated in the conversation.

Ms. Mahfouz testified that after the discussion, Mr. Compton went and got his

friend, Mr. Armstrong, who was armed with his own gun; Mr. Compton armed

himself with Defendant’s brother’s gun; and Defendant was armed with Ms. Smith’s

gun. Although she described the guns Mr. Compton and Defendant had as being

“small guns,” she indicated Mr. Armstrong’s gun was bigger than a pistol.

According to Ms. Mahfouz, she did not want to be involved in any shooting, so she

5

chose to stay home when the rest of the group left a second time. Ms. Mahfouz

indicated Mr. Milliman and Ms. Smith’s father, Jimmy, also stayed at the apartment

on Pisciotta Street.

Ms. Mahfouz testified the group that left Pisciotta Street was Ms. Carlino, Ms.

Smith, Mr. Compton, Mr. Armstrong, and Defendant. The next morning Ms.

Mahfouz learned that Mr. Davidson had died and asked her uncle to bring her to the

police station. She denied that she tried to leave town.

Ms. Mahfouz testified Defendant was primarily at Pisciotta Street to hang out

with Mr. Compton and stated she had known Ms. Carlino less than a month when

the shooting took place. Ms. Mahfouz testified that, before she could leave with her

uncle to go to the police station, law enforcement arrived at Pisciotta Street and

detained her, Mr. Compton, and Ms. Smith; she also indicated Mr. Compton and Ms.

Smith had come up with a story to tell law enforcement. Ms. Mahfouz

acknowledged giving multiple statements to law enforcement and testified that she

gave more details in one than in others; however, she maintained that she did not lie

to law enforcement.

According to Ms. Mahfouz, she was slightly impaired during her first

interview with law enforcement as it was the day after she had taken Xanax and was

a “little foggy.” She finished her testimony by stating the plan when Defendant and

the others left Pisciotta Street the second time “was to go and shoot up the house on

Orchard Loop.”

The State’s next witness was Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith acknowledged that, in

exchange for her agreement to testify truthfully, she pled guilty to conspiracy to

commit second degree murder and was sentenced to twenty years at hard labor. Ms.

Smith testified that in October 2020, she was living on Pisciotta Street with her

father, Mr. Compton, her three children, and Ms. Mahfouz. According to Ms. Smith,

6

she owned a Ruger 9mm pistol that she purchased from a gun store in Alexandria.

She testified she bought the gun, legally, for protection after being robbed while

selling marijuana.

Ms. Smith testified Mr. Anderson knew Ms. Mahfouz, who was always the

one who would contact him, and Defendant. According to Ms. Smith, Defendant

and Mr. Compton had known each for around a year before she met Defendant and

she had met Defendant through Mr. Compton about a year before the shooting.

Ms. Smith stated that on October 20, 2020, Ms. Mahfouz arranged to buy

Xanax from Mr. Anderson, Defendant did the transaction, then Mr. Compton

realized they had not gotten what they had purchased. Ms. Mahfouz tried to follow

Mr. Anderson at Mr. Compton’s direction but was unable to find the car, so they

returned to Ms. Smith’s home.

According to Ms. Smith, the group that made the initial drug purchase was

herself, Ms. Carlino who was driving, Ms. Mahfouz, Mr. Milliman, Defendant, and

Mr. Compton. She testified Ms. Mahfouz was in the front seat with Ms. Carlino,

she was in the back with Mr. Compton and Defendant, and Mr. Milliman was sitting

in the hatchback area behind the back seat. Although she could not remember the

name of the store, Ms. Smith testified the drug deal took place at a convenience store

on the corner of Highway 107 and Bragg Street. Ms. Mahfouz and Defendant

approached the car and bought the drugs; while she knew they were supposed to be

getting drugs from Mr. Anderson, there were two people in the car, and she could

not see who they were. Ms. Smith did not know the details of the purchase but

recalled Mr. Compton and someone else put up the money and all they got was five

Xanax and a bunch of paper.

Ms. Smith testified that while the others were upset because they did not get

as many drugs as they wanted, Defendant and Mr. Compton were angry that they

7

were ripped off by Mr. Anderson. Once they got back to Pisciotta, Ms. Smith

testified, Mr. Compton called Mr. Armstrong, who showed up quickly, and Mr.

Armstrong, Mr. Compton, Defendant, and Mr. Milliman were all talking together

outside the car. Although not very knowledgeable about “big guns,” Ms. Smith

testified that Mr. Armstrong had his gun, which was a rifle, when he came over

because “[h]e always had his gun.”

Aside from Mr. Armstrong who had his own rifle, Ms. Smith testified that

Defendant had her gun although she did not give it to him, and Mr. Compton had

another gun although she was not sure where it came from. She testified that Ms.

Mahfouz had realized she was blocked from contacting Mr. Anderson and the guys

were trying to decide how to confront him about the previous purchase.

Ms. Smith stated the men came back with a plan to confront the people who

sold them the drugs; however, she claimed no one mentioned shooting. She, Ms.

Carlino, Mr. Compton, Mr. Armstrong, and Defendant then went back outside to

enact the plan. She testified she was driving, Ms. Carlino was in the passenger seat,

and the three men got into the back seat, although Defendant got into the hatchback

area later. According to Ms. Smith, she was driving because Ms. Carlino was too

intoxicated.

Ms. Smith testified they went to someone’s house but that she has a memory

gap and does not remember to whom the house belonged. Defendant got into the

hatchback area of the car and then they drove to Orchard Loop. Defendant and Mr.

Compton directed Ms. Smith to the house on Orchard Loop. She did not initially

realize they were headed to the house where they bought drugs on October 16, 2020.

According to Ms. Smith, they told her to make the loop by the house and she

thought they were looking for who they planned to confront; however, that was when

the shooting started. She testified she saw Mr. Armstrong shooting his rifle out of

8

the back driver’s side window and while she believed there was more than one gun

being fired, she did not see Mr. Compton or Defendant shooting. At that point, Ms.

Smith left and drove straight back to her home.

Ms. Smith testified they cleaned shell casings out of the car when they got

back to her home. Although she remembered most of the casings being longer ones

that came from Mr. Armstrong’s rifle, she did recall there being a few shorter casings

in the car. According to Ms. Smith, Mr. Armstrong seemed happy about the

shooting; meanwhile, she and Mr. Compton argued, and Mr. Compton tried to

convince her he did not realize there was going to be a shooting. She testified that

once they were back at Pisciotta, they did not think anyone had been hurt because

there was no one outside when the shooting started. Ms. Smith said they filled Mr.

Milliman and Ms. Mahfouz in on what happened then spent the night doing drugs

and drinking to relieve stress.

At some point later in the night, Ms. Smith testified she, Mr. Compton, and

Ms. Mahfouz stayed at Pisciotta while Mr. Milliman, Ms. Carlino, and Defendant

all left. According to Ms. Smith, they did not learn someone had died until Ms.

Mahfouz saw it on social media the next day; Mr. Compton “was trying to convince

his self [sic] that it was a different situation, that it just seemed like a coincidence.”

Ms. Smith testified that before law enforcement contacted any of them, everybody

had agreed to say they bought drugs and were home before midnight. She confirmed

everyone had agreed to the story except Mr. Milliman; she was unsure if anyone had

contacted him.

Ms. Smith testified that on October 22, 2020, law enforcement showed up

looking for Ms. Mahfouz before detaining Ms. Mahfouz, Ms. Smith, and Mr.

Compton and bringing them to the police station in separate vehicles. She saw Ms.

Carlino and Defendant arrive at the police station later in the day. Ms. Smith testified

9

she stuck to the plan of claiming they bought drugs then went home during her first

interview before breaking down in her second interview later the same day.

According to Ms. Smith, her second statement revolved heavily around Mr.

Armstrong because she was afraid of him, and she did not believe he had been

detained yet.

On cross-examination, Ms. Smith clarified she bought her gun because she

was selling large quantities of marijuana and had been robbed at gunpoint. She

confirmed that, on October 20, 2020, they were riding in Ms. Carlino’s car; however,

Ms. Smith drove during the shooting because she felt she was in better shape than

Ms. Carlino despite them both being intoxicated. Ms. Smith stated again that she

remembered making a stop before going to Orchard Loop, but she had no

recollection of where or why they stopped.

Ms. Smith testified that she did not see Mr. Compton take her gun but that she

did not know where it had been for two weeks prior to the shooting. She also stated

she could not confirm how many guns were in the car during the shooting. She also

stated that she and Ms. Carlino were basically in shock when they returned to

Pisciotta and immediately sought out Ms. Mahfouz when they got out of the car.

Despite repeatedly stating that she had been grateful no one was outside, Ms. Smith

testified she would not be surprised to learn someone had been outside.

Ms. Smith testified that she knew law enforcement had not arrested Mr.

Armstrong because she had to show them a picture of him on social media at the

police station so they could identify him. Although Ms. Smith contended that she

did not know how many guns were used during the shooting, she acknowledged

knowing Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Compton, and Defendant had guns before the incident

and that she had no reason to believe any of them had gotten rid of their gun prior to

the shooting.

10

The State’s next witness was Detective Miranda Collura (“Detective

Collura”), a sergeant with the Pineville Police Department. According to Detective

Collura, she was a crime scene detective when the shooting happened and

subsequently took over evidence duties. She testified Detective Bennett had called

her to the scene of the shooting the morning after to help him process it. Detective

Collura testified she took samples from every location Detective Bennett suspected

contained blood, noting all of the blood was inside the home and belonged to Mr.

Davidson. She testified that she also obtained and executed a search warrant on Ms.

Carlino’s car; although she did not remove anything from the vehicle, she was

responsible for photographing it. She also authenticated surveillance video obtained

from the convenience store where the drug purchase took place.1 According to

Detective Collura, the video showed Defendant and Ms. Mahfouz approaching a

small, grey SUV in the parking lot before returning to Ms. Carlino’s vehicle.

The State’s next witness was Ms. Carlino. According to Ms. Carlino, she was

seventeen when the shooting in question happened. Ms. Carlino testified that she

believed they were supposed to be buying fifteen Xanax pills from Mr. Anderson

and instead received five Xanax and ten pieces of paper wadded up in the shape of

pills. She testified that at the time of the drug purchase, she, along with Defendant,

Mr. Compton, Ms. Smith, Ms. Mahfouz, and Mr. Milliman were present. Although

Ms. Carlino was in the passenger seat during the drug deal, they were all in her car.

Ms. Carlino testified the purchase was ninety dollars in exchange for fifteen Xanax,

noting she had provided forty dollars and Mr. Compton provided the other fifty.

According to Ms. Carlino, Defendant got back in the car with the supposed drugs

and the white SUV the sellers were in honked the horn and “skirted off.”

1
We note this video was never offered into evidence or published to the jury. Although it
is not in evidence, Detective Collura was allowed to describe what happened in the video.

11

Ms. Carlino testified they initially tried to follow the SUV; however, the

vehicle was already gone so they returned to Ms. Smith’s home. Ms. Carlino did

not recall the conversation outside, instead testifying everyone got out of the car and

went into Ms. Smith’s residence. She acknowledged there was some conversation

in the parking lot but stated she was so intoxicated she could not remember. Ms.

Carlino testified that everyone seemed okay while they were doing drugs; she noted

Mr. Armstrong showed up around an hour later. She testified “all the guys were

outside,” while she, Ms. Smith, and Ms. Mahfouz were inside watching television,

so she was not a part of the conversation happening in the parking lot.

Ms. Carlino testified that later she was told Ms. Mahfouz had arranged for

them to either get their money back or to get the Xanax they had paid for; it was not

until they got in the car that she noticed Mr. Armstrong had a gun. She noted it was

a longer gun, although she stated it did not look like a shotgun. She testified both

Defendant and Mr. Compton were armed with pistols. According to Ms. Mahfouz,

she believed Mr. Milliman gave his gun to his brother, Defendant, although she then

testified that she knew for a fact Defendant had Ms. Smith’s pistol and Mr. Compton

had Mr. Milliman’s pistol.

According to Ms. Carlino, she believed the guns were for protection due to

the prior incident of being shot at while dealing with Mr. Anderson. She testified

she heard the men talking about maybe beating up Mr. Anderson but claimed she

thought that was the worst thing that might happen. According to Ms. Carlino, her

connection to the people in this case was entirely through Defendant.

Ms. Carlino testified that when they went to Orchard Loop, Ms. Smith was

driving with Mr. Compton behind her, Ms. Carlino was in the passenger seat with

Mr. Armstrong behind her, and Defendant was in the hatchback portion of the car.

She testified they initially stopped on another street, and she thought the guys were

12

going to go speak with Mr. Anderson; instead, Mr. Compton told Ms. Smith to drive

around and upon approaching Mr. Anderson’s home, they slowed down, and the

guys started shooting. Ms. Carlino testified “[i]t sounded like they all emptied their

clips, honestly.” She stated all three men were shooting while Ms. Smith drove.

Ms. Carlino did not know if the guys hit anything or anyone, stating she

looked and saw Defendant and Mr. Compton shooting then turned back around and

looked at her phone. According to Ms. Carlino, Mr. Armstrong was the last one

shooting but she saw Mr. Compton and Defendant shooting out of the windows of

the car. She testified that Defendant stated they would “handle this in the streets”

immediately after the shooting, then they all returned to Ms. Smith’s residence. Ms.

Carlino testified she recalled Mr. Compton high-fiving Defendant when they got out

of the car at Ms. Smith’s residence.

Ms. Carlino did not recall any effort being made to clean her car, although she

acknowledged finding a shell casing the next day when she turned on her windshield

wipers. She testified law enforcement got in touch with her father the day after the

shooting and that she turned herself, and her car, in to law enforcement.

On cross-examination, Ms. Carlino testified that during the October 16, 2020

event and the shooting on October 20, 2020, she let Ms. Smith drive because she did

not know the area and did not function as well while on Xanax. She noted that there

were parts of the week she could not remember, even the day after the shooting, due

to her Xanax usage. Ms. Carlino clarified that on the night of the shooting, she saw

Defendant firing his gun out of the rear driver’s side window. She stated he was

leaning over the back seat and shooting out of the window while Mr. Compton was

pressed against the driver’s seat and firing out of the same window.

According to Ms. Carlino, when she, Defendant, and Mr. Milliman left Ms.

Smith’s residence, Mr. Milliman’s gun was in its case on the floor of her car. She

13

testified the gun was brought into the house when they got back to Defendant’s

sister’s house. Contrary to Ms. Smith’s assertion that they stopped before getting to

the house at Orchard Loop, Ms. Carlino testified that no one ever got out of the

vehicle from the time they left Ms. Smith’s residence until they returned. While Ms.

Carlino acknowledged having trouble remembering everything that happened when

she was taking Xanax, she testified she was completely confident about what she

told the jury because “the things I do remember is very well.”

The State’s next witness was Mr. Anderson. According to Mr. Anderson, he

was not involved in a drug transaction on October 20, 2020, he simply handed

someone a cigar pack as part of the transaction. Mr. Anderson continued to maintain

that he was not selling drugs but that he was with the victim, Mr. Davidson, who

handed him drugs to pass to Defendant and Ms. Mahfouz in exchange for money,

which Mr. Anderson claimed he gave to the victim.

Later that night, Mr. Anderson claimed he dropped Mr. Davidson off at the

home of another friend, Barron “B-Ray” Ray, returned his mother’s car, and was

walking back to B-Ray’s house where they and another friend, Nolan “Rambo”

Purvis, were all “going to get ready to go to school in the morning.” According to

Mr. Anderson, he lived a street over from B-Ray’s home and was walking back from

dropping off his mom’s car at his house. Mr. Anderson testified that as he was

approaching B-Ray’s home, he saw a car stop in the street and start shooting at the

house; once the shooting was finished, he approached the house to see if everyone

was okay. Mr. Anderson then clarified the car did not stop but simply came to a

slow roll as the shooting began. Mr. Anderson estimated over thirty shots were fired.

Although he did not know whose car it was, he recognized that it was the same car

from the drug deal earlier in the day. Mr. Anderson testified he could not see who

was in the car during the shooting.

14

Mr. Anderson testified that when B-Ray finally let him into the house after

the shooting, he saw Mr. Davidson on the ground, dead. He testified that B-Ray was

on the telephone with the ambulance while Rambo was trying to give Mr. Davidson

CPR and Mr. Anderson was just standing there with B-Ray’s two young sisters; he

believed everyone was in shock. Mr. Anderson stated that he did not see the victim

moving or talking when he arrived. Mr. Anderson testified that he did not know Ms.

Smith, Mr. Armstrong, or Mr. Compton, although he was aware Mr. Davidson had

previously had issues with Mr. Compton. According to Mr. Anderson, law

enforcement took him to the police station in a separate car from Messrs. Ray and

Purvis.

Mr. Anderson admitted to changing his story during his interview with law

enforcement, noting he initially told them he never entered the house because he

“was just shocked and everything, but I had to go back and tell the truth about

everything because at the same time that’s my friend.”

The State’s next witness was Detective Katie McBride (“Detective

McBride”), a seven-year veteran of the Pineville Police Department. Detective

McBride testified that during her initial canvas of the area with Sergeant Deville

they located two types of shell casings, 9mm and .223 rounds. Detective McBride

also testified there were holes throughout the home where bullets went through the

walls from the outside. According to Detective McBride, both Ray and Purvis were

too distraught to really speak with her at the time; however, they directed her to

speak with Mr. Armstrong.

After speaking with the three men at the police station, Detective McBride

testified they began looking for Defendant. Additionally, Detective McBride

testified that surveillance cameras in the neighborhood led her to focus on trying to

find a blue, four-door Toyota Matrix. This information led to Detective McBride

15

identifying Ms. Mahfouz and subsequently learning the location of Ms. Smith’s

residence. She testified to encountering Ms. Smith, Mr. Compton, and Ms. Mahfouz

at the 4109 Pisciotta residence. According to Detective McBride, it was Ms.

Mahfouz who led law enforcement to Ms. Carlino.

Detective McBride testified law enforcement learned Ms. Carlino’s address

from her employer, discovered a blue, four-door Toyota Matrix at the residence, and

contacted the owner, Ms. Carlino’s father, who took her to the police station.

Through interviews with Ms. Smith, Mr. Compton, Mr. Milliman, Defendant, Ms.

Mahfouz, and Ms. Carlino, law enforcement began investigating a drug deal that

occurred at the Tobacco Stop on the corner of Bragg Street and Melrose. Detectives

obtained security footage from the store showing Defendant and Ms. Mahfouz exit

Ms. Carlino’s car, approach a silver car briefly, then return to Ms. Carlino’s car.

Detective McBride noted the video was saved to a thumb drive and was subsequently

lost. According to Detective McBride, Mr. Milliman’s firearm was brought to the

police station by Mr. Milliman and his mother.

Detective McBride testified that after identifying Mr. Armstrong as an

involved party, an arrest warrant was obtained by law enforcement, but they were

unable to find Mr. Armstrong until he turned himself in to the Rapides Parish

Detention Center about a week later. Despite testimony that Ms. Smith’s firearm

ended up back at her residence, law enforcement was unable to locate the weapon.

Detective McBride testified she believed they seized $153 from Mr. Anderson

although she was unsure if they seized any drugs from him.

According to Detective McBride, when most of the people involved were

brought to the police station the day after the shooting, they were all separated into

different rooms. Detective McBride testified that it was impossible to identify

anyone in the video of the drive-by shooting; however, she asserted she was able to

16

identify Defendant and Ms. Mahfouz in the lost video from the Tobacco Stop

convenience store. She affirmed the shell casings from the crime scene were all

either .223 or 9mm rounds.

The State then called Mr. Milliman. Mr. Milliman testified that on October

20, 2020, he went with Ms. Carlino, Defendant, Mr. Compton, and Ms. Mahfouz to

buy drugs at a store. Mr. Milliman testified that he believed the drug deal was to

purchase eighteen or nineteen Xanax, but they only got five pills. According to Mr.

Milliman, everyone inside the car was angry when they realized what happened, and

they circled the block trying to find the dealers before returning to Ms. Smith’s

residence. Mr. Milliman testified that after they returned to Ms. Smith’s residence,

there was a conversation outside, the contents of which he did not remember, then

he went inside the residence where he remained until after the shooting.

Mr. Milliman testified that Mr. Compton had his gun, Defendant had a gun

that he got from Mr. Compton, and Mr. Armstrong had his own gun. Although he

could not remember the words of the conversations that occurred, Mr. Milliman

testified that everyone was angry. Mr. Milliman testified the others were planning

to go over and scare the people they bought drugs from, and he wanted nothing to

do with it, so he did not go. Mr. Milliman confirmed that Ms. Mahfouz stayed with

him when the rest of the group left.

According to Mr. Milliman, when the others returned, they were talking about

shooting up a house. Afterwards, Defendant, Ms. Carlino, and Mr. Milliman left,

and Ms. Carlino brought the brothers back to their sister’s house. Mr. Milliman

acknowledged that he had turned his gun into law enforcement and stated he gave it

to Mr. Compton the night of the shooting because Mr. Compton told him he wanted

to shoot it, although he did not specify what he was going to shoot at. He confirmed

that Mr. Armstrong had his own gun, a rifle, with him the night of the shooting. Mr.

17

Milliman testified Mr. Compton returned Mr. Milliman’s gun when they returned to

Ms. Smith’s residence.

The State’s final witness was Mike Stelly (“Mr. Stelly”) of the North

Louisiana Crime Lab. According to Mr. Stelly, he has been at the crime lab for over

twenty-nine years and his primary duties are firearms identification and fingerprint

identification. Mr. Stelly was accepted by the court as an expert in the field of

firearms identification. Mr. Stelly walked through the process of determining

whether there was a rifle and two 9mm pistols involved in this case. Ultimately, he

determined the bullet recovered from Mr. Davidson’s body was fired by a 9mm

pistol but not by the pistol recovered from Mr. Milliman. Additionally, Mr. Stelly

testified there may have been a fourth weapon as well. The State then rested its case

and the defense opted not to call any witnesses.

While Defendant contends the evidence at trial primarily consisted of “the

suspect testimony of several young co-defendants under the influence of alcohol and

narcotics” and was insufficient to find Defendant “to be a principal to assault by

drive-by shooting,” we find the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove Defendant

was an active participant in the drive-by shooting and furthermore fired the bullet,

which killed Mr. Davidson. Testimony from Ms. Smith, Ms. Carlino, Ms. Mahfouz,

and Mr. Milliman placed Defendant in the vehicle at the time of the drive-by

shooting; Ms. Smith testified Defendant was armed with her 9mm pistol while Mr.

Compton had Mr. Milliman’s 9mm pistol and Mr. Milliman confirmed he had given

his gun to Mr. Compton that night. Ms. Carlino specifically testified that she saw

Defendant firing his weapon from the vehicle. Furthermore, the testimony of Mr.

Stelly, accepted as an expert in firearms identification, established that Mr.

Milliman’s pistol was not the weapon which fired the shot that killed Mr. Davidson.

Given that multiple witnesses testified Mr. Compton had Mr. Milliman’s pistol and

18

Mr. Armstrong was firing his own rifle, the Defendant is left as the only individual

in the car who could have fired the shot that killed Mr. Davidson.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find

the State sufficiently proved that Defendant actively participated in an assault by

drive-by shooting during which he fired a 9mm round which struck Mr. Davidson in

the head, resulting in his death. While Defendant attacks the testimony of the various

witnesses because of their age and intoxication at the time of the drive-by shooting,

this court has long held that determinations of witness credibility are within the

purview of the jury.

The determination of credibility is a function of the trier of fact.
When there is conflicting testimony as to factual matters, the
determination of credibility of witnesses is within the sound discretion
of the trier of fact and such determination is entitled to great weight on
appeal. State v. Robertson, 421 So.2d 843 (La.1982); State v.
Barrett, 544 So.2d 654 (La.App.3d Cir.), writ denied, 551 So.2d 1336
(La.1989). The trier of fact may accept or reject, in whole or in part,
the testimony of any witness. State v. Butters, 527 So.2d 1023
(La.App. 1st Cir.1988), citing State v. Richardson, 459 So.2d 31
(La.App. 1st Cir.1984).

State v. Jeansonne, 580 So.2d 1010, 1014 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 584 So.2d

1170 (La.1991).

The jury was aware that most of the witnesses in this case were intoxicated

and/or under the influence of drugs on the night of the shooting. Despite this fact,

no evidence was introduced to show the witnesses were lying or mistaken when they

testified that Defendant was in the car during the drive-by shooting which resulted

in Mr. Davidson’s death, that he was shooting out of the car, or that he was armed

with a 9mm pistol, which was not recovered. Accordingly, we find no merit to

Defendant’s assignment of error.

19

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

20