State of Louisiana v. James Derek Person, II

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

KA 23-793

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JAMES DEREK PERSON, II

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF BEAUREGARD, NO. CR-2020-860
HONORABLE C. KERRY ANDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

GUY E. BRADBERRY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Ledricka J. Thierry, and Guy E. Bradberry,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

James R. Lestage
District Attorney
Adam M. Bone
Assistant District Attorney
Richard A. Morton
Assistant District Attorney
Thirty-Sixth Judicial District
124 South Stewart Street
DeRidder, LA 70634
(337) 463-5578
COUNSEL FOR:
State of Louisiana

Holli Ann Herrle-Castillo
Louisiana Appellate Project
P.O. Box 2333
Marrero, LA 70073
(504) 345-2801
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
James Derek Person, II

BRADBERRY, Judge.

On October 29, 2020, a Beauregard Parish grand jury indicted Defendant,

James Derek Person, II, with first degree murder, in violation of La.R.S.

14:30(A)(1); criminal conspiracy to commit the first degree murder, in violation of

La.R.S. 14:26 and 14:30(A)(1); and obstruction of justice, in violation of La.R.S.

14:130.1(A)(1),(A)(2), and (B)(1).1

On July 24, 2023, the State severed the charges of obstruction of justice and

criminal conspiracy and amended the first degree murder charge to remove armed

robbery. After a two-day trial, on July 28, 2023, a jury unanimously found

Defendant guilty of first degree murder.

On August 8, 2020, Defendant subsequently filed a motion for new trial,

which the trial court denied with written reasons.

On August 18, 2023, the trial court sentenced Defendant to mandatory life

imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension

of sentence.

Now, Defendant timely files his appeal with this court, assigning two errors:

1. The evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction for first
degree murder.

2. The trial court erred in overruling objections to the State’s improper
closing rebuttal.

For the reasons stated below, we find Defendant’s conviction and sentence

should be affirmed.

1
Defendant is referred to by his middle name, Derek, throughout the record.

FACTS

The facts of the case are fully set forth in the discussion of assignment of error

number one, as it concerns the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial.

ERRORS PATENT

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

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

no errors patent.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

In his first assignment of error, Defendant claims the evidence adduced at trial

was insufficient to uphold his conviction for first degree murder. Before addressing

the merits of Defendant’s argument, we will provide the applicable standard of

review.

Standard of Review

The analysis for insufficient-evidence claims is well settled:

When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the
critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier
of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct.
2781, 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.

2

The testimony of a single witness, if believed, and absent internal

contradictions or irreconcilable conflicts with the physical evidence of the case, is

sufficient to support a conviction. State v. Pierre, 14-1071 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/6/15),

170 So.3d 348, writ denied, 15-1151 (La. 5/13/16), 191 So.3d 1054.

This court has stated the following regarding appellate review in cases relying

on circumstantial evidence:

When the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence,
La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the state “must exclude every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence” in order to convict. State v. Camp, 446 So.2d
1207, 1209 (La.1984). “Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of
collateral facts and circumstances from which elemental factors may be
inferred according to reason, experience and common sense.” State v.
Burns, 441 So.2d 843, 845 (La.App. 3 Cir.1983). However, La.R.S.
15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review on appeal than
the rational juror’s reasonable doubt standard. The statute serves as a
guide for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence. On
appeal, the issue is whether a rational trier of fact, when viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could find that all
reasonable hypotheses of innocence were excluded. State v. Williams,
13-497 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 124 So.3d 1236, writ denied, 13-2774
(La. 5/16/14), 139 So.3d 1024.

State v. Baumberger, 15-1056, pp. 10−11 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/16), 200 So.3d 817,

826−27, writ denied, 16-1251 (La. 5/26/17), 221 So.3d 859, cert. denied, 583 U.S.

950, 138 S.Ct. 392 (2017).

As previously noted, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:30(A)(1) defines first degree murder as:

[T]he killing of a human being:

(1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great
bodily harm and is engaged in the perpetration or attempted
perpetration of . . . second degree kidnapping[.]

Kidnapping, as defined by La.R.S. 14:44.1(B), is:

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

3

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

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

The crime becomes a second degree offense when the victim is “[i]mprisoned or

kidnapped when the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon or leads the victim

to reasonably believe he is armed with a dangerous weapon.” La.R.S. 14:44.1(A)(5).

Evidence Adduced at Trial

During the two-day trial, the jury was presented with physical, photographic,

documentary, and testimonial evidence. Jimmie Box, Sr. testified he returned home

at 3 a.m. on August 2, 2020, from a fishing competition and noticed his son, victim

Jimmie Box, Jr., was not at home.2 When Jimmie failed to show up the following

afternoon, Mr. Box and his wife became concerned because it was unusual for

Jimmie to not return home. Mr. Box and his wife eventually reached out to Jimmie’s

friends, family members, and posted on social media to see if anyone had any

information on Jimmie’s whereabouts or that of his vehicle, a maroon Toyota

4Runner. The next day, Mr. Box retrieved Jimmie’s cell phone records, which

indicated the last number Jimmie dialed belonged to Hayley Limes, an acquaintance.

According to Mr. Box, Jimmie helped Ms. Limes a few times in the past; however,

Ms. Limes was of no assistance in locating Jimmie.

Detective Travis Thompson, an investigator with the Beauregard Parish

Sheriff’s Office, spoke with Mr. Box regarding Jimmie’s disappearance on August

6, 2020. During their conversation, Detective Thompson learned Mr. Box filed a

missing person’s report with the DeRidder Police Department on August 3, 2020.

2
For clarity, we will address victim Jimmie Box Jr. as “Jimmie” and will address victim’s
father Jimmie Box Sr. as “Mr. Box.”

4

Mr. Box started to receive information regarding Jimmie’s vehicle, so Mr.

Box gathered a group of people to help search for Jimmie within a 150-mile radius.

Eventually, Jimmie’s vehicle appeared, so Mr. Box followed the vehicle to a gas

station in Moss Bluff, Louisiana, and notified the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office

during the pursuit. According to Mr. Box, the cargo rack had been disassembled and

a few stickers had been removed, and the driver was identified as Zachary Sylvest.

Upon the return of the vehicle, Mr. Box noticed the radio, subwoofer, speakers, and

pistol were gone.

Sergeant Cody Fontenot of the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office received a

call about a maroon Toyota 4Runner linked to a missing person entering Calcasieu

Parish. The digital license plate reading (LPR) system verified the 4Runner as

Jimmie’s missing vehicle. After learning of the location of the vehicle, Sergeant

Fontenot “maneuvered behind it” and followed the vehicle into a convenience store

parking lot, known as the “Bronco Stop,” in Moss Bluff, Louisiana. Thereafter,

Sergeant Fontenot spoke with the driver, Zachary Sylvest, and explained to Mr.

Sylvest his reasoning for pursuing the vehicle. Nevertheless, there were no signs of

Jimmie. Zachary Sylvest was subsequently arrested after suspected

methamphetamine and heroin were found during a search of the vehicle. Mr.

Sylvest’s phone was also confiscated.

According to Detective Thompson, LPR detected Jimmie’s vehicle traveling

southbound towards Gillis, Louisiana, at 1 a.m. and then traveling northbound

towards Beauregard, Louisiana, at 3 a.m. on August 7, 2020. Later that evening,

Detective Thompson received a call about Jimmie’s vehicle being stopped at a gas

station in Moss Bluff, so he headed to the scene. Once he left, Detective Thompson

went to the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office to speak with Zachary Sylvest. After

5

the interview, the Beauregard Parish Sheriff’s Office served a search warrant at both

1046 Tom Woodard Road and 1040 Tom Woodard Road, where Defendant and

Hayley Limes reside.

During the search of Defendant’s and Hayley Limes’ homes, officers

recovered Mr. Box’s subwoofer, swords, firearms, ammunition, and a DVR

recording system that was missing its hard drive. Pieces of a dissembled nine-

millimeter semi-automatic handgun were also discovered throughout various places

in Defendant’s home. However, the barrel of the nine-millimeter handgun was not

recovered at that time. Detective Thompson identified the recovered handgun as the

same handgun depicted in a photograph posted on Defendant’s Facebook page from

six years ago.

On August 8, 2020, Detective Thompson spoke with Defendant at the

Beauregard Parish Sheriff’s Office.3 The interview was audio and video recorded.

Before questioning Defendant, Detective Thompson advised Defendant of his

Miranda rights.4 According to Detective Thompson, Defendant did not appear to be

under the influence at the time.

In the transcript of Defendant’s statement, Defendant indicated he and Jimmie

were friends who met years ago, while Jimmie was working at Advanced Auto Parts.

Defendant admitted he saw Jimmie on Saturday, August 1, 2020, when Jimmie

stopped by Hayley Limes’ house. However, Defendant stated he was unsure of when

Jimmie left. Defendant ultimately denied having any involvement in Jimmie’s

3
Although the State introduced the video recording of Defendant’s statement into evidence,
the thumb drive with the video recording was not submitted with the case file. However, this court
was able to retrieve the transcript of Defendant’s interview under Defendant’s previously filed writ
application, 23-329.
4
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966).

6

kidnapping or death and argued his girlfriend, Shona West, made a false statement

implicating him due to her excessive medication use. Defendant also stated he had

no association with Zachary Sylvest and had not spoken to Mr. Sylvest in “a while.”

On August 17, 2020, Detective Thomspon received a call from J.D. Parker, a

Louisiana State Police Investigator, in reference to an oil site in Bon Wier, Texas.

Detective Thompson, along with a few others, traveled to Bon Wier, wherein they

discovered Jimmie’s decomposed body. Jimmie appeared to be lying face-down

with his hands bound behind his back with black, 550 paracord rope. According to

Detective Thompson, Jimmie’s hands were bound behind his back during the

commission of his death. Jimmie’s shoes, a pair of LSU Crocs, were also found next

to his body.

Detective Jedediah (“Jed”) Irvine of the DeRidder Police Department

retrieved surveillance footage from the local gas station Jimmie stopped at before

going to Hayley Limes’ house. The surveillance footage depicted Jimmie walking

into the store on August 1, 2020, at approximately 11 p.m. It is noted that the same

shoes found near Jimmie’s decomposed body were the same shoes depicted on the

surveillance photo.

Detective Irvine conducted a second search of Defendant’s home on August

11, 2020, wherein he found the missing barrel, the slide stop, and the case for the

firearm. The gun barrel was found in a green, plastic bucket located on the kitchen

counter. According to Detective Irvine, the serial number on the firearm matched

the serial number on the barrel. Detective Irvine indicated without either the barrel

or the slide stop, the weapon could not fire. Detective Irvine could not attest to

whether the bucket had been previously searched or whether someone entered the

Defendant’s home between the first and second search.

7

Paul Nixon, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, was

assigned to recover the evidence at the Bon Wier scene. During his search for

evidence, Agent Nixon found a shell casing as well as bullet fragments underneath

Jimmie’s remains.

Danny Fernea of the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab conducted a test fire

of the nine-millimeter semi-automatic handgun recovered from Defendant’s home.

According to Mr. Fernea, the handgun arrived disassembled, but none of the pieces

were missing. After Mr. Fernea reassembled the handgun, he fired the handgun three

times, and then, he submitted the fired rounds, casings, and bullets to another

individual in the lab, Chelsee Richardson, for testing. Mr. Fernea did not examine

the firearm.

Chelsee Richardson, a firearms examination expert with the Louisiana State

Police Crime Lab, tested the nine-millimeter firearm recovered from Defendant’s

home as well as the fragments and cartridge recovered from the crime scene. Ms.

Richardson concluded two of the fragments were pieces of a bullet, but the other

fragments were pieces of different metals. Since the two fragments arrived

damaged, Ms. Richardson was not able to compare them to the bullets used during

the test fire. However, Ms. Richardson was able to compare the nine-millimeter

cartridge case recovered from the crime scene to the fired cartridge case collected

during the test fire. According to Ms. Richardson’s findings, the cartridge retrieved

from underneath Jimmie’s body was fired from the nine-millimeter handgun

recovered from Defendant’s home.

Dr. Ginesse Listi, an expert in Forensic Anthropology, performed a trauma

analysis of Jimmie’s remains. According to Dr. Listi, Jimmie’s remains were in an

advanced stage of decomposition; there was skeletal exposure and decomposed soft

8

tissues present. Dr. Listi removed the residual tissues and cleaned Jimmie’s skeleton

before performing the analysis. Dr. Listi’s assessment revealed Jimmie’s “skull

exhibit[ed] trauma consistent with a minimum of one perimortem gunshot wound”

in addition to “perimortem trauma in the lower jaw as well as on the cranium.” There

were also perimortem radiating fractures on the anterior, posterior, and lateral sides

of Jimme’s cranium due to the impact of the gunshot wound. A small metal fragment

was also found in Jimmie’s cranium.

Dr. Ami Murphy, an expert in Forensic Pathology, conducted an autopsy on

Jimmie’s body. Due to the physical state of his remains, Jimmie had not been

identified yet; his remains were partially skeletonized with compromised and

degraded soft tissues. However, Dr. Murphy used DNA to assist with identifying

Jimmie.

During the external examination of Jimmie’s remains, Dr. Murphy noticed

that Jimmie’s “hands were tied behind his back with a black cord.” While

performing the internal examination, Dr. Murphy found no obvious signs of trauma

or natural disease. However, a sample of Jimmie’s muscle tissue “tested positive for

methamphetamine.” Nonetheless, the methamphetamine did not contribute to his

death.

Concerning injuries, Dr. Murphy observed a “hole on the bottom part of

[Jimmie’s] skull, that looked like it could be consistent with a gunshot wound.” So,

to determine whether the injury was caused by a gunshot wound or another injury,

Dr. Murphy obtained a consultation from an anthropologist. The anthropologist’s

findings confirmed Dr. Murphy’s hypothesis. Jimmie sustained a gunshot wound

from the back of his head through the front. Ultimately, Dr. Murphy determined

9

Jimmie’s cause of death to be “a gunshot wound [to] the head” and Jimmie’s manner

of death to be a “homicide.”

Shona West, Defendant’s girlfriend, was also arrested in connection with

Jimmie’s kidnapping and murder. Ms. West decided to testify at Defendant’s trial,

so she could receive leniency from the District Attorney’s Office and earn mercy

from Jimmie’s family. Ms. West was not offered anything in exchange for her

testimony. Ms. West admitted to making several false statements to law

enforcement throughout the course of the investigation to protect herself and

Defendant. Nonetheless, Ms. West indicated she was telling the truth during her

testimony, which went as follows:

Q Now, who was with Derek when Jimmie was kidnapped?

A C.J. Ford and Hayley Limes.

Q Did the kidnapping start at Hayley’s house?

A Yes, sir.

Q Had you heard Derek -- had you personally heard Derek
describing the kidnapping plan prior to it taking place?

MR. TILLMAN:

Objection, Your Honor.

A (THE WITNESS) Yes, sir.

....

Q (MR. JOHNSON) Prior to Jimmie being kidnapped, had you
personally heard Derek Person -- sitting right there, describe the plan
to kidnap Jimmie?

A Yes, sir.

Q Was that plan[ned] to take place at Hayley’s house?

A Yes, sir.

10

Q Was Jimmie coming over to Hayley’s house?

A Yes, sir.

Q Were C.J. Ford and Derek Person waiting in that house armed
with firearms?

A Yes, sir. They were.

Q Did Derek typically carry a 9mm firearm?

A Yes, sir.

Q How did he typically carry it?

A On his waist.

Q Was it –

A On his hip.

Q Was it in a holster?

A Yes, sir. In a holster.

Q I’m [going to] show you a picture, ma’am. This was previously
introduced into evidence as State’s number 13. Do you recognize this
picture?

A Yes, sir.

Q What’s that a picture of?

A The handgun on the nightstand.

Q Okay. Is that Mr. Person’s holster?

A Yes, sir. That is Mr. Person’s holster.

Q That nightstand, is that Mr. Person’s side of the bed?

A Yes, sir.

Q When Mr. Person was in bed; is that typically where the gun and
holster were?

A Yes, sir.

11

Q Did he have that gun and that holster with him before you saw
him leave with Jimmie on the night of August [2nd] and when you saw
him come back?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you know of any other handguns that Mr. Person would
typically carry besides this one that was always in that holster?

A No, sir.

Q Do you know roughly how long it was after you saw Jimmie
being driven away in C.J. Ford’s truck with Derek Person in the truck
as well -- before Derek and C.J. Ford came back?

A It was about forty-five minutes to an hour.

Q The phone records would be the most objective source of that?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you communicate several times with Derek during the time
after which he took Jimmie away?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you communicate with Derek when he was on the drive back
–

A Yes, sir.

Q -- to your home?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did Jimmie ever get back to your home?

A No, sir.

Q Did you ever see Jimmie again after that?

A No, sir.

Q Were Jimmie and Derek friends?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did they maintain contact with each other?

12

A Yes, sir.

Q Talk on the phone?

A Yes, sir. They did.

Q Text message?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you allow the detectives, during one of your statements to
law enforcement, to take your cell phone and give them consent to
search it?

A Yes, sir.

Q You mentioned a little bit earlier that you had communications
with Derek during the drive away and when he was coming back?

A Yes, sir.

Q Those communications, those calls, those text messages, they
were deleted from your phone before you gave it to law enforcement,
right?

A Yes, sir.

Q They were?

A Yes, sir.

Q So, while these -- while Derek and C.J. Ford were gone, you
drove the 4Runner, correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q Where -- did you drive it back to your house?

A Yes, sir.

Q Where did you park it?

A In the bamboo.

Q Did you tell law enforcement that?

A Yes, sir.

Q Eventually?

13

A Yes, sir. Eventually.

Q Not at first?

A No, sir.

Q Did you help Derek to try to get rid of that 4Runner in the days
following before it was eventually found?

A Yes, sir. I did.

Q Did you contact some of your family members?

A Yes, sir. I did.

Q Did you ask them to help get rid of the vehicle?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you arrange for that vehicle, that 4Runner, after you knew
Jimmie was gone, to be brought to your family’s property?

A Yes, sir.

Q You did that?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you tell law enforcement you did that?

A No, sir.

Q You lied about that?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, about -- before I move too far along, let me ask you about
your lifestyle in the months leading up to this happening; were you
using drugs?

A Yes, sir.

Q Were you using a lot of drugs?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you -- would you use meth sometimes?

A Yes, sir. I would.

14

Q Would you use pills?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do you have any prior criminal convictions for having Percocet
when you were not supposed to?

A Yes, sir.

Q You tried to give law enforcement an excuse about that?

A Yes, sir. I did.

Q That was BS, right?

A Yes, sir.

Q You had Percocet and you weren’t supposed to –

A Yes, sir.

Q -- is that true?

A Yes, sir. It is[.]

Q Did you continue to have a pill problem after that?

A Yes, sir.

Q August the 8th, when sheriff’s deputies got to your home, when
police officers got to your home that you shared with Derek, you heard
them outside; is that right?

A Yes, sir.

Q They were asking for you guys to come out for quite a while; is
that right?

A Yes, sir.

Q What were you doing when they were asking you to come out?

A I was in the bathroom flushin[g] pills.

Q Were you and Derek asleep when law enforcement [ ] arrived?

A No, sir.

Q What were you doing before law enforcement got there?

15

A We had intercourse and then we were outside smoking a
cigarette.

Q And you heard law enforcement coming?

A Yes, sir.

Q And you went inside?

A Yes, sir.

Q And you flushed dope?

A Yes, sir.

Q What was Derek doing while y’all were inside and the law
enforcement was asking for y’all to come out?

A Taking apart the gun.

Q Was he hiding pieces of it?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did he try to take apart any other guns or just his handgun?

A Just his handgun.

Q The handgun that he keeps in that holster by the bed?

A Yes, sir.

Q About six days after you were arrested, you asked to talk with
law enforcement again; is that right?

A Yes, sir.

Q Were you promised anything to talk with law enforcement?

A No, sir.

Q Did you tell [sic] some things that were true and some things that
were still maybe a little bit dishonest?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you tell law enforcement about Jimmie’s hands being tied
behind his back with 550 cord?

16

A Yes, sir. I did.

Q Now, that was on August 14th of 2020, correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q So, C.J.’s --- I’m sorry, Jimmie’s body was found August 17th
of 2020, law enforcement would not have known about that yet, right?

A Correct.

Q Did you get that information from Derek?

A Yes, sir.

Q Once Derek and C.J. returned back to your house -- you know,
Jimmie wasn’t there, right?

A No, sir.

Q Did you know in advance by talking with Derek that there was at
least a plan to kidnap Jimmie and bring him to the woods?

A Yes, sir.

Q You didn’t do anything about that did you?

A No, sir.

Q You didn’t call the police, did you?

A No, sir.

Q Did you communicate while Derek and C.J. had taken Jimmie --
did you communicate with someone named Zach Sylvest?

A Yes, sir.

Q Is Zach Sylvest a friend and associate of Derek’s?

A Yes, sir.

Q Is Zach Sylvest who took that 4Runner from your home?

A Yes, sir.

Q Was that pursuant to Derek’s request?

A Yes, sir.

17

Q During that kidnapping, you communicated with Zach Sylvest?

A Yes, sir.

Q You didn’t tell law enforcement that, did you?

A No, sir.

Q You know, the phone records -- can’t get around `em sometimes;
is that right?

A Yes, sir.

Q So, was Zach -- seem to be looking for Derek?

A Yes, sir.

Q What’d you tell Zach?

A That he was in the woods.

Q You respond in text, “He was taking care of some shit,” right?

A Yes, sir.

Q And then saying, "He didn’t tell you?"

A Yes, sir.

Q That’s what you said to Zach?

A Yes, sir. That’s correct.

Q And that’s while this kidnapping was taking place?

A Yes, sir.

Q While Derek was away from your home?

A Yes, sir.

Q When Jimmie had left with him?

A Yes, sir.

Q During the week -- six and a half days from when Jimmie was
kidnapped until law enforcement got to your home, was Derek pretty
paranoid during that week?

18

A Yes, sir.

Q Was he keeping up with the developments on social media
regarding Jimmie’s disappearance?

A Yes, sir.

Q Was he angry during that week?

A Yes, sir.

Q Are you happy to be here today?

A Yes, sir.

Q Are you telling the truth today?

A Yes, sir.

On cross-examination, Ms. West stated she made multiple false statements to

the police because she was scared and wanted to protect Defendant. Ms. West later

admitted to not having personal knowledge regarding the events that occurred the

night of Jimmie’s kidnapping; she received all information from Defendant.

However, Ms. West indicated she saw Jimmie in the back seat of the vehicle with

Defendant and C.J. Ford prior to them leaving that night.

During the investigation, Samuel Langford, a Ranger with the Texas

Department of Public Safety, was contacted about a fugitive by the name of C.J.

Ford in his jurisdiction. Upon receiving the arrest warrant, Ranger Langford and the

local Marshall’s Fugitive Task Force went to a motel in Ingleside, Texas, wherein

they found and arrested Mr. Ford. Ranger Langford conducted a search of the motel

following Mr. Ford’s arrest and retrieved Mr. Ford’s cellphone.

J.D. Parker, a former Senior Technical Support Officer with the Louisiana

State Police, and an expert in mobile device forensics as well as cellular network and

geolocation analysis, was requested to assist in locating Jimmie. Throughout the

19

investigation, Mr. Parker reviewed Jimmie’s, Defendant’s, C.J. Ford’s, Shona

West’s, and Zachary Sylvest’s cell phone records. According to the records,

Jimmie’s cellphone stopped communicating with AT&T towers at 1:21 a.m. on

August 1, 2020, near Tom Woodard Road.5 Jimmie’s phone was never recovered,

and his phone never regained communication with the AT&T network.

Regarding Defendant and C.J. Ford’s whereabouts, Mr. Parker stated:

Q All right. So, what about the other phones? Talk to me about what
you saw in the records for Mr. C.J. Ford and Mr. Derek Person.

A What I saw was that generally in the afternoon of the 1st, C.J.
Ford and Derek Person are in and around the area of Tom Woodard
Road, I believe it’s 1046 Tom Woodard Road.

Q Just to be super clear, you said afternoon of the 1st?

A That’s correct.

Q How many hours before Mr. Box’s phone turns off?

A About --

Q About nine hours?

A Nine to twelve hours.

Q All right. Please continue.

A So, it’s over in that area, stays there -- most of the -- doesn’t show
leaving from that area most of the day. Then, that evening around
7:30ish, 7:45, those two phones, Mr. Box -- I mean, Mr. C.J. Ford and
Mr. Derek Person, those two phones travel east -- west down 112, come
into town and travel west to Merryville crossing over into Bon Wier.

Q So, this is actually before Mr. Box goes missing?

A That’s correct.

Q They travel to the Bon Wier area?

5
We note for clarity that the date would have been August 2, 2020, instead of August 1,
2020, since it was after midnight.

20

A That’s correct. And this particular part of the day, Mr. Box’s
phone is geolocating around the area of DeRidder. I believe he’s going
to be in and around his residence.

Q So, what happens after Mr. C.J. Ford’s phone and Mr. Person’s
phone goes to that Bon Wier location in the early evening hours? What
happens next?

A They stay there a few minutes, you know, no more than thirty
minutes. And then, they travel back and end up back at the Tom
Woodard Road area. They stay there ‘til a little bit after midnight, and
then after, Mr. Box -- Mr. Box leaves town. He’ll make a trip to Circle
K, and then travel up to the Tom Woodard Road. After Mr. Box gets to
the Tom Woodard Road area, C.J. Ford and Derek Person -- both of
their phones both geolocate back to Bon Wier. What’s different about
this trip is this time they don’t take 190. They take a road south of 190.
They absolutely could not have taken 190 during this trip.

They go to Bon Wier, and then they come up, you know, they
take like Neale Oilfield Road into Merryville. They get back on 190, go
into Bon Wier, stay there a few, you know, fifteen to twenty minutes,
somewhere right in there, and they go back to the Tom Woodard Road
area. Every trip -- the first two trips and the trip going back, those trips
are down 190. But the trip when they leave, after Mr. Box gets to the
Tom Woodard Road area, they take a different route to the same
location.

Q So, I’ll ask you then because I see where you’re going. So, what
is the significance to you that in the evening hours they take 190 to Bon
Wier -- they take 190 back from Bon Wier? And then, right around that
1 o’clock time period, 12:30 a.m. time period, they don’t take 190. And
then, when they are returning, they take 190. What did you think about
that back road deviation?

A I think that is to avoid detection by law enforcement. Just in case,
we don’t want to run across any police, and just in case we will take
this other route because --

Q Because why?

A They have Jimmie Box in the back of the vehicle at that point.

Q That was your susp[icion]?

A Yes.

Thereafter, Mr. Parker discussed his methodology on locating Jimmie:

21

Q All right. And so, knowing that you suspected that they had taken
Jimmie Box in the vehicle to the Bon Wier location, where did y’all
look for Jimmie Box?

A We looked in and around the Bon -- now, initially we’re looking
at cell phone -- the cell phone towers. Like I said, it’s not like TV. The
cell phone towers -- some of the cell phone towers over there in the
Merryville area have an 11 mile -- maybe 11 miles that way and 11-
mile-wide area. So, you’re talking about an area that’s 11 miles by 11
miles, and you have to start looking in there.

There’s no magic, he’s right here in this swath on the map. We
looked in and around the river, we searched a pond over there in Texas.
The sheriff’s office was asking me constantly, give me an area to
search, I’ve got guys to go out there and search, give me an area. And
a lot of times, I would give them an area, but I just wasn’t -- it wasn’t a
confident area.

....

Q So, it sounds like in this case and on this iPhone for Mr. C.J.
Ford, that was collected by the Rangers, he had his location services on
at the time of this offense?

A He did.

Q And so, what were able to see about the locations that his phone
automatically stored that you referenced?

A I saw a couple of locations at Tom Woodard Road from the day
from August, you know, August the 1st into August 2nd. And then, I
also saw a location in Bon Wier, Texas.

Q And so, you already kind of knew you were looking at the Bon
Wier, Texas area, right? So, was this not just the same information from
the phone records?

A No, this wasn’t the same information. Like I said a minute ago, I
was not confident or reluctant to give the sheriff’s office locations. I
couldn’t wait to call them to give them this location.

Q And so, why is that?

A Because I knew we were about to find Jimmie Box.

Q And so, talk to me about what happened next, what did you do?

A I got in my car because I had to go to Alexandria to where the
GrayKey was. I got in my car[,] and I started driving back and I called

22

the sheriff’s office and I said, you know, rally them up, I’ve got us a
location to go. And they were like where, I said it’s in Bon Wier. You
know, by now I’ve sent them on a couple of wild goose chases, and I
said -- I was asked how sure are you? I said, if we need a search warrant,
I’ll sign the affidavit swearing to it that this is where we need to go.
That’s how sure I was. I gave them the location. I’m speeding back over
here[,] and they tell me they are going to meet me at a little gas station
over in Texas. They say they will meet me on the side of the road, we’ll
wait for [you]. So, I pull up to the gas station and I’m like, there is no
way I beat these guys here. I call them, and they said they are already
on their way down 4075, which is a county road over in Bon Wier. I
was like, y’all didn’t wait on me. So, I headed on down the road, I
wasn’t [at] the location yet and they called me and said, we found him.

Thereafter, Mr. Parker discussed the communication frequency between

Jimmie, Defendant, and Hayley Limes. According to Mr. Parker, Jimmie and

Defendant had “nearly twelve hundred communications,” which consisted of text

messages and voice calls, prior to the night of Jimmie’s disappearance. Jimmie also

had “208” messages and “33 voice calls” with Hayley Limes. Jimmie’s records

indicated he communicated with both Defendant and Hayley Limes until the day of

the crime.

Mr. Parker also provided a visual demonstration of the whereabouts of

Defendant, C.J. Ford, and Shona West on the night of Jimmie’s disappearance

pursuant to their phone data. According to Mr. Parker, Defendant, C.J. Ford, and

Shona West were all on Tom Woodard Road around midnight. Then, after Jimmie

arrived at Tom Woodard Road, Defendant and C.J. Ford traveled to Bon Wier, TX,

near the crime scene.

Arguments in Brief

In brief, Defendant argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to

uphold his first degree murder conviction. Specifically, Defendant claims the State

failed to prove that he kidnapped victim Jimmie Box, Jr. and/or that the kidnapping

occurred in Louisiana. According to Defendant, there was no direct evidence of a

23

kidnapping, and the State solely relied on the conflicting testimony of co-defendant,

Shona West. Defendant contends Ms. West did not observe any actions that

remotely resembled a kidnapping, as Ms. West could not testify that Defendant held

Jimmie at gunpoint or forced Jimmie to get inside of the vehicle. Moreover,

Defendant asserts Ms. West was “an untrustworthy witness,” who suffers from a

drug addiction and “mental health issues.” Nevertheless, Defendant argues the State

failed to prove that a first degree murder occurred in Louisiana. As such, Defendant

insists the State failed to present sufficient evidence of a first degree murder.

Therefore, Defendant claims his conviction should be vacated.

On the contrary, the State argues the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient

to sustain Defendant’s conviction for first degree murder. According to the State,

the evidence presented at trial was “overwhelming against” Defendant and that the

elements of first degree murder were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The State

additionally notes that Defendant argues against the credibility of co-defendant,

Shona West. Nonetheless, the State asserts that “the credibility of the witnesses and

the weight of the evidence submitted fall solely to the jurors to determine, and the

appellate courts are not permitted to second-guess the jurors[’] judgments as to those

matters.” As such, the State contends the evidence adduced at trial was more than

sufficient “to support the jury’s guilty verdict.”

Jurisprudence and Analysis

A rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

State, could have reasonably found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of

first degree murder. The State’s witness, co-defendant Shona West, testified she

saw Jimmie, Defendant, and C.J. Ford in the vehicle together on the night of

Jimmie’s disappearance. The State also presented evidence that demonstrated

24

Defendant as the owner and possessor of the firearm used to kill Jimmie. The

documentary and testimonial evidence of digital forensic expert, J.D. Parker, placed

Defendant at the crime scene twice on the night of Jimmie’s disappearance. The

State’s evidence also revealed that Jimmie’s hands were bound behind his back

during the commission of his death. Lastly, Ms. West testified Defendant informed

her of the plan to kidnap Jimmie at Hayley Limes’ house and then kill Jimmie in the

woods. Although Ms. West made inconsistent statements throughout the

investigation, it is the fact finder’s role to weigh the respective credibility of the

witnesses, and the reviewing court will not second-guess the credibility

determinations of the fact finder beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the

Jackson standard of review. State v. Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 (La.1983).

We find the conviction is also supported by this court’s decision in State v.

Senegal, 14-1163 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/4/15) (unpublished opinion) (2015 WL 914705),

writ denied, 15-686 (La. 2/26/16), 187 So.3d 469. In Senegal, the defendant was

unanimously found guilty of two counts of first degree murder, one count of second

degree kidnapping, and two counts of obstruction of justice. The defendant

appealed, arguing the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his

convictions due to the inconsistent statements made by Amanda Lebon, Kim Hanks,

and Hahn Hanks, the prosecution’s witnesses. Ms. Lebon testified the defendant

asked her to drive to Kim Hanks’ home to question the victim regarding the slashing

of the defendant’s tires. Ms. Lebon stated once they arrived at Ms. Hanks’ home, the

defendant got out of the vehicle, knocked on the door, and went inside of Ms. Hanks’

home. According to Ms. Lebon, Kim Hanks answered the door; however, both Kim

Hanks and Hahn Hanks denied answering the door for defendant. Ms. Lebon stated

she stayed inside of the vehicle because her children were also in the vehicle.

25

Afterwards, Ms. Lebon testified she saw the defendant arguing with someone and

appeared to have a gun in his hand. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Lebon heard two

gunshots and saw the defendant run off the porch; she was unsure whether the

defendant murdered anyone. As she was scared for her and her children’s safety,

she allowed the defendant to get back into the vehicle before leaving the Hanks’

residence. Kim Hanks testified she saw the defendant drive away from the scene;

however, she did not see anyone else in the vehicle with him. All three witnesses

identified the defendant as the shooter. In affirming the defendant’s convictions,

this court stated:

In his argument regarding the insufficiency of the evidence to
prove the murders, the Defendant points to internal inconsistencies in
Amanda Lebon’s testimony as well as inconsistencies between her
testimony and the testimony of the Hanks sisters. Specifically, he notes
that Amanda testified she was good friends with Gary, but then testified
that she tried to persuade the Defendant to stay away from Gary and his
friends. He then focuses on Amanda’s testimony that the Defendant
exited and re-entered the passenger door of the car at the Hanks’ house
whereas Hahn Hanks testified when she looked out[,] she saw the driver
door shutting and Kim Hanks testified she did not see anyone get back
into the car and she could not see anyone else in the car. Finally, the
Defendant notes the differing testimony as to whether Kim Hanks
answered the door when the Defendant arrived at the Hanks’ residence.

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

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency
of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781,
2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d
1305 (La.1988). A determination of the weight of
evidence is a question of fact, resting solely with the trier
of fact who may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the
testimony of any witnesses. State v. Silman, 95–0154
(La.11/27/95), 663 So.2d 27, 35. A reviewing court may
impinge on the factfinding function of the jury only to the
extent necessary to assure the Jackson standard of review.

26

State v. Bordenave, 95–2328 (La.4/26/96), 678 So.2d 19,
20. It is not the function of an appellate court to assess
credibility or re-weigh the evidence. Id.

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

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

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

The inconsistencies in testimony pointed out by the Defense in
this assignment of error are a matter of credibility, which is in the
purview of the fact finder. The jury’s verdict indicates it viewed any
inconsistency in the witnesses’ testimonies as insignificant to their
overall credibility. We will not disturb the credibility determination
made by the jury. The Defendant’s claim has no merit.

Id. at 8–10 (second alteration in original).

Considering the jurisprudence and a thorough review of the record, we find

the evidence presented, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, proved

beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of

innocence, the elements of first degree murder.

Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s first degree

murder conviction and this assignment of error is without merit.

27

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO

Prosecution’s Improper Statements

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

overruling the defense’s objections to the State’s improper closing rebuttal

statements.

The following colloquy occurred during the State’s rebuttal closing argument:

MR. JOHNSON:
You know, no matter how long I do this, no matter how many
murder cases I try, every time I’m still flabbergasted what some defense
lawyers are willing to look you in the eye and tell you with a straight
face. I sat there flabbergasted as Mr. Tillman just called something
hearsay that he knows the legal definition of, that’s not hearsay, and
that’s his client’s own statements. He knows that the law explicitly says
that’s not hearsay. But he injects that word to you because he knows
you don’t know better than that unless the Judge reads it to you, hoping
that you decide it’s unreliable. . . .

....

You know, there [were] complaint[s] -- a lot about Hayley. Now,
I’m not a fan of Hayley, she’s not [on] trial. But what one cannot do is
call a co-defendant and then -- so, you know they can call a co-
defendant [be]cause they did this morning. But then complain about
you not hearing from another co-defendant. Let that process in your
minds. Let that process in your minds.

The defense called a co-defendant, so you saw it was possible.
They don’t have to do it, but you can keep that credibility in mind about
the whining about you not hearing from any other co-defendant.

MR. TILLMAN:
May we approach?

THE COURT:
Mr. Johnson, approach.

(BENCH CONFERENCE)

MR. TILLMAN:
That’s clearly a misstatement of law [be]cause obviously I
cannot call a co-defendant. I can’t -- I don’t have the privilege of
giv[ing] immunity, you do.

28

MR. ROBINSON:
We already did.

MR. JOHNSON:
(UNINTELLIGIBLE)

MR. ROBINSON:
It’s done. She (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

MR. TILLMAN:
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) co-defendants. You’re talking about me
calling the co-defendants.

MR. ROBINSON:
Right. (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

MR. TILLMAN:
I can’t do that.

MR. ROBINSON:
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) then you have the right to call her.

MR. JOHNSON:
You can call her as long you don’t use what she says --

MR. TILLMAN:
I don’t get to use it, you do.

MR. ROBINSON:
(UNINTELLIGIBLE)

MR. JOHNSON:
You’re free to call her.

MR. ROBINSON:
Yeah. She’s given -- she’s been granted immunity.
(UNINTELLIGIIBLE) an order compelling her testimony.
(UNINTELLIGIBLE DUE TO TALKING SIMULTANEOUSLY)

MR. JOHNSON:
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) for Hayley too.

MR. TILLMAN:
There was a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) though.

THE COURT:
We [sic] straighten it out.

(BENCH CONFERENCE CONCLUDED)

29

MR. JOHNSON:

....

The good thing about evidence in this country is the defense
doesn’t have to do anything at all and he’s right. But that evidence --
those rounds are in that box[,] and they’re kept. And they’re kept so
that anybody who disagrees with their conclusions can retest them.
Anyone, if they want, can test those rounds. If they think that they
weren’t fired from that gun, they can test those rounds and bring in
someone to the affect.

MR. TILLMAN:
Your Honor, may we approach?

THE COURT:
Approach.

(BENCH CONFERENCE)

MR. TILLMAN:
I’m sorry to do that but that’s again saying we have to call
(UNINTELLIGIBLE).

MR. JOHNSON:
(UNINTELLIGIBLE)

MR. TILLMAN:
We don’t have to present evidence.

THE COURT:
He’s not saying you have to present it[,] but you have the right
to examine those rounds, hire your own expert, have them test[ed] it if
you wanted to. There’s nothing wrong about the statement that he made.
He didn’t say you had to, he said you could.

MR. TILLMAN:
I don’t know if that’s (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

(UNINTELLIGIBLE DUE TO TALKING SIMULTANEOUSLY)

MR. JOHNSON:
It’s a significant difference. (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

THE COURT:
He never said anything about the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --

30

MR. TILLMAN:
It doesn’t say we should’ve done it. He said we should’ve
presented a defense is what he’s saying. But we could’ve called these
people and should’ve done this.

THE COURT:
The second part of that is exactly what he said, is that you could
have tested the rounds, which I think is an allowable statement. He
didn’t say that you had to.

MR. TILLMAN:
I mean, that -- to me, it flies in the face[,] and we don’t have to
do anything, but (UNINTELLIGIBLE) [ ] I would object to that.

THE COURT:
So noted.

MR. TILLMAN:
Note our objection.

Arguments in Brief

In brief, Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling the improper

comments made by the State during its closing rebuttal argument. Defendant

contends the State misstated the law and made personal comments about defense

counsel, as an attempt to “convince the jury that trial counsel was a liar.” According

to Defendant, the statements were inappropriate and inaccurate, which ultimately

influenced the jury and contributed to the verdict. Therefore, Defendant claims the

trial court erred in overruling the defense’s objections.

To the contrary, the State contends Defendant’s arguments are “moot” and

that “it is not probable that a jury was so influenced by these tactics or argument that

it persuaded them or contributed to the verdict.” According to the State, the evidence

solely led the jury to believe that Defendant was guilty of first degree murder, and

as such, its rebuttal was not inappropriate.

31

Jurisprudence and Analysis

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 774 provides the following

regarding the scope of the State’s closing argument:

The argument shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack
of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw
therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case.

The argument shall not appeal to prejudice.

The state’s rebuttal shall be confined to answering the argument
of the defendant.

Moreover, La.Code Crim.P. art. 771 provides:

In the following cases, upon the request of the defendant or the
state, the court shall promptly admonish the jury to disregard a remark
or comment made during the trial, or in argument within the hearing of
the jury, when the remark is irrelevant or immaterial and of such a
nature that it might create prejudice against the defendant, or the state,
in the mind of the jury:

(1) When the remark or comment is made by the judge, the
district attorney, or a court official, and the remark is not within the
scope of Article 770; or

(2) When the remark or comment is made by a witness or person
other than the judge, district attorney, or a court official, regardless of
whether the remark or comment is within the scope of Article 770.

In such cases, on motion of the defendant, the court may grant a
mistrial if it is satisfied that an admonition is not sufficient to assure the
defendant a fair trial.

In State v. Prince, 16-260 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/17), 211 So.3d 481, writ denied,

17-410 (La. 11/28/17), 230 So.3d 222, writ denied, 17-667 (La. 2/23/18), 237 So.3d

1190, cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 139 S.Ct. 102 (2018), this court ruled on a similar

issue regarding a comment made by the State. During its opening statement, the

State said “[a]s humans evil is among us every day in a different shape[.]” Id. at

495. Shortly thereafter, the defense objected to the comment, arguing that it was

improper argument. The trial court subsequently overruled the objection. On

32

appeal, the defendant claimed the trial court erred by overruling its objection, as the

comments made by the State were not within the scope of La.Code Crim.P. arts. 766

and 774. Affirming, this court stated the following:

The supreme court has explained:

Prosecutors may not resort to personal experience or turn
argument into a plebiscite on crime. State v. Eaton, 524
So.2d 1194, 1208 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1019, 109
S.Ct. 818, 102 L.Ed.2d 807 (1989); State v. Barrow, 410
So.2d 1070, 1075 (La.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 852, 103
S.Ct. 115, 74 L.Ed.2d 101 (1982); State v. Prestridge, 399
So.2d 564 (La.1981). However, before this court will
reverse on the basis of improper argument it must be
thoroughly convinced the jury was influenced by the
remarks and such contributed to the verdict. Eaton, supra.
“In making this determination, the court gives credit to the
good sense and fairmindedness of the jury.” Eaton, 524
So.2d at 1208. See also Taylor, 93–2201 at p. 21, 669
So.2d at 375. State v. Williams, 96–1023, p. 15 (La.
1/21/98), 708 So.2d 703, opinion corrected (La. 5/28/98),
708 So.2d 703, 716, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 838, 119 S.Ct.
99, 142 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998).

Defendant appears to acknowledge that the remarks at issue are
subject to a harmless error analysis.

....

While Defendant objected to the remarks at issue, he did not
request a mistrial. As mentioned earlier, Defendant renewed his
objection after the opening. The trial court stated that it would advise
the jury not to be moved by emotion and ultimately gave such an
instruction. Thus, we find the dictates of La.Code Crim.P. art. 771 were
satisfied.

We also find there is little likelihood the remarks influenced the
jury and contributed to the verdict. Pursuant to Williams, we find that
the possible influence of the remarks does not rise to the level of
thoroughly convincing this court that they improperly influenced the
verdict. As discussed in the previous assignment of error, the core of
the case was the credibility of Michael Hayes, whose testimony was
corroborated by other evidence at trial and obviously believed by the
jury. The State’s appeal to the general idea of evil did not clearly have
a bearing on the credibility issue. Also, a true contemplation of general
evil might just as easily have led the jury to doubt Hayes. It is clear he
is not a “model citizen,” and the district court allowed Defendant to

33

explore the issue of whether Hayes was merely trying to save his own
neck at Defendant’s expense.

For the reasons discussed, this assignment lacks merit.

Id. at 497–99.

We note, as in Prince, Defendant objected to the comments made by the State

but failed to request a mistrial. It is noted the trial court informed the jury that the

statements made by counsel were not evidence and instructed the jury to disregard

any information that was not presented in evidence. Considering jurisprudence and

a thorough review of the record, we find that the State’s comments had no influence

on the jury, as the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant was

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of first degree murder.

Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s conviction and sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

34