State of Louisiana v. Kineric Oneal Curry

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-79

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

KINERIC O’NEAL CURRY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWENTY-EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LASALLE, NO. 23-1
HONORABLE J. CHRISTOPHER PETERS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

WILBUR L. STILES
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Wilbur L. Stiles,
Judges.

AFFIRMED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Paula C. Marx
Louisiana Appellate Project
P.O. Box 82389
Lafayette, LA 70598-2389
(337) 991-9757
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Kineric O’Neal Curry

J. Reed Walters
District Attorney
Twenty-Eight Judicial District
W. Evans Dorroh, III
Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Box 1940
Jena, LA 71342-1940
(318) 992-8282
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

STILES, Judge.

A unanimous jury found Defendant, Kineric O’Neal Curry, guilty on October

23, 2023 of false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse

aggravated assault, and domestic abuse battery. On December 5, 2023, the trial court

sentenced Defendant to serve nine years at hard labor for false imprisonment with a

dangerous weapon, four years at hard labor for domestic abuse aggravated assault,

and six months in the parish jail for domestic abuse battery.

Defendant has appealed, arguing that the evidence admitted at trial was

insufficient to support the guilty verdict of false imprisonment while armed with a

dangerous weapon. For the following reasons, we affirm Defendant’s conviction and

sentence, with instructions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant and the victim, Ruth Ann Crafts, lived together as boyfriend and

girlfriend. It is undisputed that on August 30, 2022, there was an argument between

the two at their home. Ms. Crafts testified at trial that as she was getting ready for

work, Defendant backhanded her into the bathtub and she fell over a shelf. He then

told her to shut her mouth and that she was not going to work. According to Ms.

Crafts’ testimony, Defendant initially had a bat which he used to beat the bedroom

walls. They then went “into the living room and he grab[bed] this big old piece of

wood and he start[ed] screaming and hollering and [] cussing and he beat the piece

of wood upside beside [Ms. Crafts’] head.” Defendant next got a knife and

threatened to kill Ms. Crafts, straddling her on the couch while holding the knife in

his hand.

During this altercation, Ms. Crafts’ friend and coworker, Robbie Charlene

Thomas, arrived to pick up Ms. Crafts for work. Both Ms. Thomas and Ms. Crafts

testified at trial that when Ms. Thomas knocked on the door, Defendant poked his

head out and informed Ms. Thomas that Ms. Crafts was not going to work that day.

Ms. Crafts was behind Defendant and asked Ms. Thomas to call 911. When Ms.

Thomas told Defendant she was going to call the police, they got into an argument.

While Defendant was distracted, Ms. Crafts ran out the door and got into Ms.

Thomas’ car. Ms. Thomas then drove Ms. Crafts to her house, where they called Ms.

Crafts’ mental health counselor, Glenda Parker. When Ms. Parker arrived at Ms.

Thomas’ house, she called the police.

Defendant was initially charged in a bill of information with false

imprisonment with a dangerous weapon, in violation of La.R.S. 14:46.1, domestic

abuse aggravated assault, in violation of La.R.S. 14:37.7, and domestic abuse battery

by strangulation, in violation of La.R.S. 14:35.3(A), (B)(7), and (L).1 A jury trial

commenced on October 23, 2023, and on October 24, 2023, a unanimous jury found

Defendant guilty of false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon, domestic battery

aggravated assault, and the responsive verdict domestic abuse battery.

On December 5, 2023, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve nine years

at hard labor for false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon, four years at hard

labor for domestic abuse aggravated assault, and six months in the parish jail for

domestic abuse battery. The trial court ordered that the sentences for domestic abuse

aggravated assault and domestic abuse battery are to be served concurrently with

one another, but consecutively with the sentence for false imprisonment with a

dangerous weapon. Defendant was ordered to pay all costs of court, including the

The bill of information was amended on October 23, 2023, to reflect Defendant’s correct
1

name and social security number.

2

cost of the presentence investigation report, and to stay away from the victim, Ms.

Crafts, for two years.

Defendant has appealed, asserting one assignment of error:

The evidence is insufficient to support the guilty verdict of false
imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon.

Specifically, Defendant argues that the evidence admitted at the trial of this case was

insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant, while armed with a

dangerous weapon, intentionally confined or detained Ms. Crafts, in violation of

La.R.S. 14:46.1.

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 have found

an error in the Uniform Commitment Order which requires correction.

The transcript of Defendant’s sentencing hearing states that the trial court

ordered the sentence imposed for domestic abuse battery to run concurrently with

the sentence imposed for domestic abuse aggravated assault, but to run consecutively

with the sentence imposed for false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon.

However, the Uniform Commitment Order states that the sentence imposed in Count

3 (domestic abuse battery) was ordered to run concurrently with both Count 1 (false

imprisonment with a dangerous weapon) and Count 2 (domestic abuse aggravated

assault). In the event of such a conflict, the sentencing transcript prevails. State v.

Williams, 15-498 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/9/15), 181 So.3d 857, writ denied, 16-26 (La.

1/13/17), 215 So.3d 242.

Accordingly, we instruct the trial court to correct the Uniform Commitment

Order to correctly reflect the trial court’s order that the sentence imposed for

3

domestic abuse battery is to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for false

imprisonment with a dangerous weapon.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In his sole assignment of error, Defendant contends that the evidence admitted

at trial was insufficient to support the verdict of false imprisonment while armed

with a dangerous weapon.

The analysis for an insufficient-evidence claim 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. v. 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.

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

irreconcilable conflicts with physical evidence, 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.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:46.1 defines false imprisonment with a

dangerous weapon as “the unlawful intentional confinement or detention of another

while the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon.” “In order for this court to

uphold a conviction of false imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon,

4

La.R.S. 14:46.1 requires the State prove that the Defendant unlawfully and

intentionally confined or detained the victim while armed with a dangerous weapon.”

State v. Disedare, 19-810, p. 20 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/13/20), 298 So.3d 342, 357, writ

denied, 20-800 (La. 12/22/20), 307 So.3d 1041 (quoting State v. Touchet, 04-1027,

p. 11 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/05), 897 So.2d 900, 908).

Defendant’s Argument

Defendant contends that the evidence admitted at trial, when viewed under the

Jackson v. Virginia standard, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that he, while armed with a dangerous weapon, intentionally confined or detained

the victim, Ms. Crafts. He urges that although Ms. Crafts may have felt that he would

not let her leave their home, the evidence adduced at trial did not establish that she

attempted to leave the home and was prevented from doing so by Defendant.

According to Defendant, Ms. Crafts’ friend, Ms. Thomas, testified that “the door

was open” and that Defendant “did not have a weapon at that time.” Defendant

further notes that he “did not try to stop” Ms. Crafts once she ran outside and “did

not chase her when she left” their home.

To support his argument, Defendant differentiates the facts of his case with

those of State v. Shupp, 15-695 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/3/16), 185 So.3d 900, wherein the

defendant zip-tied the victim’s hands and held her captive in the bathroom.

Defendant asserts that the circumstances of his case did not involve a “hostage type

situation” like in Shupp, but was rather “an altercation with injuries sustained by Ms.

Crafts.” Defendant notes that no dangerous weapon was introduced into evidence,

no testimony revealed that he was holding a weapon when Ms. Thomas arrived, and

no testimony established that Ms. Crafts was tied up or bound to prevent her from

leaving. As such, Defendant concludes that the State failed to prove that he was

5

guilty of false imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon beyond a

reasonable doubt and prays that his conviction for this offense be vacated.

State’s Argument

On the contrary, the State argues that the evidence admitted at trial was

sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find Defendant guilty of false imprisonment

with a dangerous weapon. In support of its argument, the State cites State v. Taves,

02-709, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/15/03), 846 So.2d 1, 7, reversed on other grounds,

03-518 (La. 12/3/03), 861 So.2d 144, wherein this court affirmed the defendant’s

conviction for false imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon after the

defendant “pulled a gun on [the victim], threatened to kill her, denied her access to

a phone and refused to allow her to leave.” The State additionally cites State v.

Disedare, 298 So.3d at 357-58, wherein this court affirmed the defendant’s

conviction for false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon when the victim

testified that the defendant “dispossessed her of her cell phone and keys and threw

them in the yard before attacking her” and put a knife “to her neck and chest and

threatened to cut her heart out.”

The State argues that the facts of Taves and Disedare are similar to those of

this case, as Ms. Crafts testified that Defendant told her she was not going to work,

strangled her while holding a knife in his hand, and took her wallet and her phone.

Moreover, the State rationalizes that the jury, as factfinders, believed Ms. Crafts’

statement regarding the events that occurred. As such, the State contends that the

evidence admitted at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

Defendant committed false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon.

6

Analysis of the Facts and Jurisprudence

The evidence presented at the trial of this matter included the testimony of

five witnesses: Robbie Charlene Thomas, Ms. Crafts’ friend and co-worker; Clark

Palmer, the owner of the mobile home being rented by Ms. Crafts at the time of the

incident; Glenda Parker, Ms. Crafts’ mental health counselor; Deputy Jordan Mayo,

the officer who responded to the incident; and Ruth Crafts, the victim.

Ms. Thomas testified that on August 30, 2022, she went to Ms. Crafts’ home

to pick her up for work, which was something she did regularly every day. When

Ms. Thomas knocked on the door, Defendant “poked his head out and told [her] that

Ruth Ann was not going to work that day.” Ms. Thomas stated that she started

looking around and when she spotted Ms. Crafts behind Defendant in the residence,

Ms. Crafts told her that she couldn’t get out and asked her to call 911. When asked

what her impressions were as to what was going on at the time, Ms. Thomas testified:

I had no idea, really, when I initially walked up but whenever she told
me to call 911 and I told him then, I said, is she going to come outside
or not? And he said, she ain’t going to work today. And then I said,
well, I ain’t got time to play games so I’m going to my truck and I’m
getting my phone and I’m going to call the law.

When Ms. Thomas turned to go to her vehicle to get her phone, Ms. Crafts managed

to get past Defendant and out onto the front porch. Ms. Crafts then got into Ms.

Thomas’ vehicle and the two of them left the residence. When they arrived at Ms.

Thomas’ home, they called Ms. Crafts’ counselor, Ms. Parker, who arrived about

five to ten minutes later.

Ms. Thomas was asked at trial to describe Ms. Crafts’ demeanor at the time

she was able to get out of the house. She testified that Ms. Crafts had fear in her eyes,

that she had been crying, she was shaking, and she was hysterical. When pressed

about Ms. Crafts’ demeanor as she described the incident to Ms. Thomas, Ms.

7

Thomas stated that Ms. Crafts “was terrified” and “shaking like a leaf on a tree.”

Additionally, Ms. Thomas noticed a bruise on the left side of Ms. Crafts’ chin and a

mark and bruise under her ear along her jawline. On cross-examination, Ms. Thomas

noted that those bruises were new as Ms. Crafts didn’t have any marks on her the

day before the incident. Ms. Thomas also stated that she had “no idea” if Defendant

had tried to prevent Ms. Crafts from leaving the home due to her back being turned

at the time. Nevertheless, Ms. Thomas testified that Defendant did not have a

weapon and did not follow them once Ms. Crafts left the home. She explained that

she did not call the police because Ms. Crafts was scared and loved Defendant.

The second witness to testify at trial was Mr. Palmer, Ms. Crafts’ former

landlord and the owner of the mobile home in which the incident occurred. Mr.

Palmer was asked to describe the condition of the mobile home after the August 30,

2022 incident:

Once I was able to finally get into the mobile home and look around, I
was able to see that there were a number – fifteen, I didn’t count them.
A number of holes that had been poked into the ceiling. There were a
number of places where the sheetrock had been bashed in. And the
house was in a general state of disheveled [sic]. It was a mess.

He further testified that there were also holes in the floor. When asked if he thought

someone had intentionally damaged the mobile home, Mr. Palmer stated, “Yes. I

was told they had and then it was clear that these were not problems that had

developed over time. Someone had to have done these things.” Mr. Palmer

ultimately demolished the mobile home due to its condition.

Ms. Parker, a mental health specialist and Ms. Crafts’ former counselor, was

the next witness called at trial. She testified that Ms. Thomas called her on the day

of the incident and asked if she could come to Ms. Thomas’ home because Ms. Crafts

was hysterical. When Ms. Parker arrived, Ms. Crafts “was very, very upset.... She

8

was shaking. Just really frantic.” Ms. Parker testified that Ms. Crafts told her the

following about what occurred with Defendant at her home:

She said that she had been at her home and that they had, had an
altercation. That it had started in the bathroom. That, uh, in the
bathroom she was trying to get ready for work and that [Defendant] had
backhanded her. And then from that point they had moved into the
living room and she just kept saying that he hit the wall with this big
object, piece of wood or object, and that he had threatened her with a
knife, to put it through her head. That he had choked her. And then she
moved to, that Robbie had showed up to take her to work and she had,
his attention was away from her and she ran out the door. And
apparently fled with Robbie.

Ms. Parker further testified that Ms. Crafts “kept saying that . . . her neck and

chin hurt” and that Ms. Crafts had “signs of a slight bruising.” The officer who

arrived at Ms. Thomas’ home asked Ms. Parker to take photographs of Ms. Crafts’

bruises, which she did.2 Ms. Parker stated that she saw Ms. Crafts the next day for a

follow-up and observed that “her neck was more bruised.”

On cross-examination, Ms. Parker stated that she had never seen Ms. Crafts

as frantic as on the day of the incident. According to Ms. Parker, Ms. Crafts

expressed feeling trapped, “that she wasn’t going to get out of there.” Ms. Parker

further admitted that in previous counseling sessions, Ms. Crafts “felt like, maybe,

her safety was compromised.”

Deputy Jordan Mayo of the LaSalle Parish Sheriff’s Department testified at

trial regarding his investigation of the case. Deputy Mayo stated that on the date of

the incident, he was dispatched to an area in the Midway Community, where he

spoke with Ms. Crafts and Ms. Parker. When asked to elaborate on Ms. Crafts’

demeanor, Deputy Mayo stated:

2
Photographs taken by Ms. Parker depicting Ms. Crafts’ injuries were entered into
evidence as State’s Exhibits 1 and 2.

9

She was so upset that she could barely talk. And when I would get her
to talk, which it took a little bit to get her to talk to us she was so upset.
And at times we would have to take a break and she would have to
collect herself because she would begin to hyperventilate and she would
begin to cry really, really loud and she would become very, very upset.
Very emotional. And so at times we would have to take a break, stop,
let her collect herself, get her thoughts back together and continue on
from there.

Deputy Mayo also noticed “red marks” and “bruising” around Ms. Crafts’ neck and

chin.

Deputy Mayo’s bodycam footage of his interview with Ms. Crafts was played

at trial.3 We have also reviewed the bodycam footage. During her interview with

Deputy Mayo, Ms. Crafts stated numerous times that Defendant threatened to kill

her and had a “bat, stick, and a knife” throughout the incident. She also stated that

Defendant went to get a “shoe box,” which she believed had a firearm in it.

The final witness to testify at trial was Ms. Crafts. She testified that she and

Defendant were dating and living together at the time of this incident. According to

Ms. Crafts, things escalated on August 30 as she was getting ready for work.

Q. Where did the unpleasantness start and why?

A. In the bathroom. I was getting dressed for work. I was fixing to
do my hair and we was having a conversation and [Defendant]
backhanded me into the bathtub. I fell over a shelf.

Q. Did he speak anything to you? Did he tell you anything?

A. Not right then. He just told me to shut my mouth and I wasn’t
going to go to work. So, I go to the bedroom to change clothes because
I always change clothes. He followed me in there. We went to the living
room. He followed me there.

Q. When you were in the bedroom, what happened?

A. He had a bat and he started beating the walls.

3
A thumb drive containing the video footage was entered into evidence as State’s Exhibit
3.

10

Q. Okay. Did he not tell you, at that time, why he was angry?

A. He never said why he was angry except for that I had a man under
the bed.

Q. Did you have a man under the bed?

A. No, sir. My mattress set [sic] on the floor.

Q. Okay. It didn’t compute. So, after what happened in the bedroom
happened, what happened after that?

A. We go into the living room and he grabs this big old piece of
wood and he starts screaming and hollering and he’s cussing and he
beats the piece of wood upside beside my head.

Q. Where were you-

A. I was sitting on the couch.

Q. You were sitting on the couch?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Where is he, relative to you and the couch?

A. He’s in front of me.

Q. Okay.

A. My kitchen and my living room’s together. It’s one big room.

Q. Okay.

A. All right. He hits the big old stick up against, right beside my
head on the couch. Then he says he’s going to get a knife and he’s going
to put a knife through my skull and I won’t be alive in the morning.

Q. Did he get a knife? Ruth Ann, I know this is hard but it’s better
to do it right now than to have to come back and do it later. Okay?

A. He said I won’t be alive by morning.

Q. Did he have anything in his hand whenever he told you that?

A. He had a knife in his hand.

Q. Where was he, relative to you, whenever he told you that?

11

A. He was straddle [sic] me on the couch.

Q. Did you believe him?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When he swung the bat – how many times did he swing the bat
towards you?

A. I’m not sure.

Q. More than how many?

A. I don’t know. It was a lot. He was on a rampage.

Q. Ruth Ann, three witnesses have testified that you had marks on
your neck. How did you get marks on your neck?

A. From where he tried to choke me.

Q. Describe to the jury how you felt when he tried to choke you.

A. I thought I was going to die.

Q. Do you recall Robbie Thomas getting to your house to pick you
up for work?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You and [Defendant], both, were aware that she was at the house
before she actually knocked on the door?

A. Yes, sir. We heard her pull into the driveway.

Q. What, if anything, did [Defendant] tell you whenever she pulled
into the driveway?

A. He told me not to speak and that I couldn’t go to work. And she
knocked on the door and he told her I wasn’t going to work that she
could leave. And she looked in and I was on the couch and I mouthed
to her to call 911.

Q. So, what, did she and [Defendant] exchange words after that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who said what to [who]? Describe the conversation.

12

A. She said she wasn’t leaving there until she laid eyes on me and
she talked to me. And he said she wasn’t talking and she wasn’t going
to talk to me, and she needed to leave. And they got into a screaming
match. My door has only a deadbolt. I didn’t have a regular doorknob.
And the door come open and his back was turned to me and I run out
the house.

Q. When you ran out of the house, where did you go?

A. To [Ms. Thomas’] and she called my counselor and then they
called the law.

Q. Was there any – I’m going to back you up a little bit. Okay, Ruth
Ann? Was there any discussion, on that day, about a gun in your trailer?

A. Yes, sir. He said everybody thinks he don’t have a gun but he has
a gun and he’s going to fucking prove it.

Q. How close to that was from whenever, when Robbie Thomas
came to your house?

A. Just a few minutes before. And he gets up off of me and goes
down the hallway and he grabs a shoe box.

Q. You never saw what was in the shoe box, did you?

A. No, sir.

On cross-examination, Ms. Crafts testified that Defendant confiscated her

wallet and phone and had three weapons in his possession throughout the incident:

a bat, a piece of wood, and a knife. According to Ms. Crafts, Defendant’s back was

turned towards her when she took the opportunity to run; thus, Ms. Crafts could not

definitively state whether Defendant reached for her to stop her from running out of

the door.

After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we

find that the evidence presented at trial proved beyond a reasonable doubt that

Defendant committed the offense of false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon.

As noted by the State, Ms. Crafts, the victim, testified that Defendant told her that

she was not going to work, took her phone and wallet, and possessed various

13

weapons throughout the incident. Although no weapons were recovered or seen by

anyone other than Ms. Crafts, we note “[i]t is not the province of the reviewing court

to assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence.” State v. Crawford, 14-

2153, p. 20 (La. 11/16/16), 218 So.3d 13, 26 (citing State v. Smith, 94-3116, p. 2 (La.

10/16/16), 661 So.2d 442, 443). Therefore, we find that the State presented sufficient

evidence to prove that Defendant intentionally confined or detained Ms. Crafts with

a dangerous weapon.

Accordingly, Defendant’s assignment of error lacks merit.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s convictions and sentences are

affirmed. The trial court is instructed, however, to correct the Uniform Commitment

Order to correctly reflect the trial court’s order that the sentence imposed for count

three, domestic abuse battery, is to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for

count one, false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon.

AFFIRMED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

14