Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Burl L. PARKER
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1982-05-17
Citations: 425 So. 2d 683
Docket Number: No. 81-KA-2050
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Burl L. PARKER.
Judges: MARCUS and WATSON, JJ., dissent and assign reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 425
Pages: 683–703

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Burl L. PARKER.
No. 81-KA-2050.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 17, 1982.
On Rehearing Nov. 29, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1983.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., William E. Til-ley, Dist. Atty., Asa A. Skinner, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
F. Clay Tillman, Jr., of Simms, Tillman & Fontenot, Leesville, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion:
BLANCHE, Justice.
Defendant, Burl L. Parker, was convicted of first degree murder, a violation of R.S. 14:30, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Parker appeals his conviction to this Court, raising nine assignments of error. Finding reversible merit as to one of these assignments, we pretermit consideration of the remaining errors assigned by defendant.
Defendant's mother, father, sister and half brother were found shot to death. The mother and sister died at the family home in Vernon Parish; the father and half brother in a wooded area of Claiborne Parish. The discovery of all four bodies resulted from information provided the authorities by defendant himself. In statements made before and after his arrest, defendant claimed that his half brother, Wilbur Edwards, was the perpetrator. According to Parker, his half brother shot his mother and sister before taking his father and himself hostage and driving them to Claiborne Parish. Defendant claimed that when they stopped in a wooded area, he grabbed Edwards' gun and killed him, but not before Edwards had killed defendant's father and wounded defendant. In the instant case, Parker was only charged, tried and convicted of the death of his mother.
Assignment of Error Number 7
By this assignment of error, defendant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict based upon the law and the evidence. We recognize that directed verdicts of acquittal are no longer available in jury trials. See C.Cr.P. art. 778. Even so, this Court has held that when the sufficiency of evidence is raised by a formal assignment of error, the matter is preserved and is subject to appellate review. State v. Edwards, 400 So.2d 1370 (La.1981).
At trial, it was established that on the evening of July 17, 1977, at approximately 8:30 p.m., the Vernon Parish Sheriff's Office received a long distance telephone call. The caller identified himself as Burl Parker, and requested to speak with Deputy D.B. Davis. Parker, who spoke in a calm and controlled manner, informed Deputy Davis that there had been a murder, that there "were people all over the ground" and that he himself had been shot, but that he "had gotten the boy". When the deputy at tempted to ascertain where defendant was calling from, Parker responded, "I'll tell you when I get there. I'll be there in a few minutes." Nearly two and one half hours later, defendant arrived at the police station. By that time, Deputy Davis had gone off duty, but had informed Deputy Steven Rodina of defendant's phone call and his anticipated arrival.
Deputy Rodina first observed defendant about 11:00 p.m. as Parker was proceeding up the walkway that led to the Sheriff's office. He was accompanied by another officer and had a .32 caliber Smith & Wesson pistol in his hand. As Rodina approached Parker, he was told, "I killed the man, and here's the gun." At this point the officers took the gun away from defendant and led him into the Sheriff's office. Deputy Rodina noticed that defendant had an injury to his lower left side that "didn't seem to be a real bad wound." When asked whether he had been shot, defendant replied, "Yes, but I got the man." At no time did defendant request, nor the officers offer, medical assistance for defendant's injury. Deputy Rodina then asked defendant where the shooting took place and how many were dead. To this inquiry defendant responded, "No, I don't know. I picked up a hitchhiker, he forced us all in the car and made us drive to Corney Lake. There are at least three dead and maybe four." Parker refused to elaborate on the shootings until "after I talk to the right people." Defendant told Deputy Rodina that his mother was dead, that he told Deputy Davis about his mother and that Davis was "suppose to check it out".
James Hagan, an investigator for the Vernon Parish District Attorney, arrived at the Sheriff's office at about 11:30 p.m. Though Parker refused to sign a waiver of rights form, he voluntarily submitted to Hagan's interrogation. Concerning his questioning of defendant, Hagan testified that Parker told him that shortly after lunch, he was out in a small shop, or shed, which he described as a workshop doing some woodwork. This workshop was located in the rear of the family home.
"He indicated that he was possibly working on a gun rack. At some time, maybe 30, 40 minutes or an hour after he was there, he heard a gunshot — one single shot at the direction of the house which he lived in — and at that point, he went to investigate to see exactly what happened. He said he entered the house, and when he entered the house, he found his mother lying in the hallway where she had been shot in the head with some type of weapon. At that point, a guy who he described — or said a guy named Edwards —that's all he could tell me, he said a guy named Edwards took he and his father hostage, put them in his car and drove them to North Louisiana, near Homer, Louisiana, and there, he shot his father and killed him and he and the boy got into a scuffle. He eventually got a gun that the boy had in his belt out of his belt and shot and killed the boy."
Hagan requested that Deputy Rodina go to the defendant's house in order to corroborate Parker's story. In the house, the officers discovered the body of defendant's mother, Izella Parker. A later inspection of the grounds surrounding the house revealed the existence of another body, that of Audrey Parker, defendant's sister. Both victims had been shot in the head.
The Claiborne Parish Sheriff's Office was notified that the Vernon Parish Sheriff's Office had a suspect in custody who claimed there were two bodies in the Corney Lake area. A search of the vicinity near the lake uncovered the existence of two more bodies: defendant's father and defendant's half brother, Wilbur Edwards. Like the sister and mother, these victims had been shot to death. The half brother was lying face down with a rifle positioned beneath him and still in his grasp.
On July 22, five days after Parker was arrested, Deputy Sheriff Gary Bowden took a written statement from the then 61 year old defendant. Bowden also secured a broken-down double barrel shotgun from the trunk of the vehicle driven by defendant, as well as a sawed-off .22 caliber rifle. According to defendant's statement, which was offered in evidence, the following events occurred:
On Sunday morning, July 17, Parker was working on some gun racks at his workshop located behind the family residence. In an attempt to finish his project, Parker did not go into the house to eat lunch. Suddenly, his half brother, Wilbur Edwards, appeared at the door of the shop. He had a .32 caliber pistol in his pants and was carrying a .22 automatic rifle. When defendant's dog attacked Edwards, the half brother killed the dog and told Parker the same thing would happen to him unless Parker went with him and did exactly as he was told. Defendant was ordered to retrieve a sawed off .22 rifle from his shop and place it in Audry Parker's blue Datsun.
Defendant was brought into the family residence and was shown the body of his mother. According to Parker, his half brother told him, "I've killed them both." However, Parker claims that he never saw his sister's body. Edwards ordered defendant to help him search for ammunition for the .22 caliber sawed off rifle. Defendant alleged that his half brother "had already got one box of ammo that was setting out on the table."
Edwards then informed defendant that they were going to pick up their father and that defendant had better "keep your mouth shut, don't you tell daddy that I've killed them." Parker stated that when they arrived at their father's ehurch house Edwards began to tell the father that he was going to kill his wife and mother in law and that "You all double crossed me with my wife."
At this point, Parker claimed that his half brother led him and the father out to the blue Datsun with a double barrel shotgun. When Edwards couldn't fit the shot gun behind the front seat, he broke it down and placed it in the back of the car. Parker and his father were then forced into the car, the father in the front passenger seat, and defendant in the back seat.
According to defendant, they drove toward North Louisiana, making several stops to quench their thirst, get gas, and for the purpose of changing drivers. Finally, the Datsun and its occupants arrived at the Corney Lake area. Defendant, who was familiar with this area, suggested they turn off the main road and rest at a nearby spring. Edwards and the father got into an argument about the father's knowledge that Edwards' wife was going to leave him and his attempt to conceal that information from Edwards. Parker claimed that Edwards suddenly became violent, stepped toward him and the father, and shot at defendant with the .22 caliber automatic rifle. When the first shot missed defendant, he struggled with Edwards over the rifle and managed to grab the .32 revolver out of Edwards' waistband. Edwards managed to fire two or three more times, once striking defendant, before Parker was able to shoot Edwards with the .32 caliber pistol as his half brother hovered over him.
Parker claimed he was stunned and remained on the ground for a few moments. When he regained his composure, he looked around and saw that his father had been shot and killed during the exchange of gunfire. Defendant picked up the pistol and got in the blue Datsun to get help. As he approached the main roadway, he became physically ill and stopped for a few minutes. At this point, a sheriff's vehicle passed right in front of him, slowed down, and observed defendant about to pull out of the woods. Parker claimed that he tried to catch the officer, but could not find the patrol car after it rounded a nearby curve. Parker continued to drive on, past a church gathering, and through the town of Bernice before stopping at Hodge. Here, he called the Vernon Parish Sheriff's Office and told them of the homicides. Defendant claimed that he told the police he would be at the sheriff's office in a few minutes, "but I was mistaken and it was further away than I thought."
All of the physical evidence recovered by the law enforcement officers was sent to the Northwest Crime Lab for analysis. According to the testimony of the state's criminologist, Ray Heard, this evidence included one plastic bag containing a .32 Smith & Wesson revolver with four .32 caliber hulls and two .32 caliber cartridges; one plastic evidence bag containing one .22 caliber bullet found in the head of Audry Bond; one plastic bag containing a piece of red material; one plastic bag containing one .32 caliber bullet found in the hallway at the feet of Mrs. Parker; one plastic bag containing one white gown of Mrs. Parker's and blue blouse, etc.; one model .22 caliber Stephens rifle; one model .22 caliber J.C. Higgins rifle; one model Rome .22 caliber revolver; one bag containing .22 caliber hull found at the entrance to shop; one plastic bag containing .32 caliber bullet from Mrs. Parker; and one model 67-A .22 caliber Winchester rifle with barrel and stock cut off.
Tests showed that the bullet found at the base of Audry Parker's head originated from the .22 sawed off rifle, the weapon Parker claimed he was told to retrieve from the workshop when taken hostage. The .32 Smith & Wesson pistol fired the shots which killed both Izella Parker and Wilbur Edwards. Defendant's father was shot with a .22 caliber bullet, but because it was severely damaged, the crime lab was not able to determine the bullet's origin. However, none of this physical evidence was introduced at trial. Mr. Heard testified that the crime lab, while in the process of ridding its storage area of unnecessary evidence, inadvertently disposed of the physical evidence recovered by the state in the instant case. As there were no witnesses to the homicides, the state's case against Burl Parker rested entirely upon circumstantial evidence.
In presenting its case, the state attempted to prove that Parker was the perpetrator and had fabricated his scenario in order to conceal his guilt. To dispel defendant's claim that he and his father were abducted by Wilbur Edwards, the state relied primarily on the testimony of Bill Doherty. This witness knew the defendant, as well as the victims, for a substantial period of time. After having established his relationship with Wilbur Edwards, he was asked if he remembered seeing Wilbur on the 17th of July. He said that he saw him at approximately 1:30 on that particular Sunday afternoon. At the time, Doherty was parked in his car. With him were David Jackson, Kenny Jackson, Gary George, Johnny Do-herty and Dave Drew. When he first saw Wilbur Edwards, he was on the left hand side of the road some 90 ft. away. He tooted his horn at Wilbur, and Wilbur turned around and began walking back up the road to where Doherty was parked. At about that time, a little blue car "whipped in" between the Doherty vehicle and Edwards. Wilbur Edwards walked up to the ear and the driver got out of the driver's side and into the passenger's side. At that time, Wilbur bent over the car and clenched his hands behind him in some manner. However, whatever signal he gave, it was taken by Doherty to mean that he could go on, so he pulled off. As he drove by, Do-herty recognized the man in the car as Burl Parker. The last time he saw Wilbur Edwards, he was walking to the driver's side of the car. The other occupants of the Doherty vehicle gave similar testimony.
The sum total of these witnesses' statements was to the effect that they saw Burl Parker pick up Wilbur Edwards at about 1:30 that afternoon and that Burl initially was driving the blue Datsun and moved over to the passenger seat as Edwards got behind the driver's wheel. According to the state, this testimony conclusively established that it was defendant who abducted Wilbur Edwards, and not Edwards who abducted defendant.
However, we note that throughout the investigation, defendant referred to his half brother as "the boy", "the man", or "Edwards". In his statement to Deputy Rodi-na, Parker stated he had picked up a "hitchhiker" on the day of the murders. It is conceivable that this was Parker's way of articulating that he had stopped to give his half brother a ride. This admittedly unusual means of referring to Edwards is explainable. The record indicates that though Wilbur Edwards was known in the community as Parker's half brother, he may have been nothing more than defendant's foster brother. The 35 year age difference between Parker and Edwards, as well as the extreme age of defendant's parents substantially support this conclusion. As a result, it is likely that Parker did not look upon Edwards as a true sibling but thought of him as a mere acquaintance.
The state also attempted to establish that after Burl Parker exited the wooded area around Corney Lake he took action designed to avoid a confrontation with the deputy on patrol. Deputy Danny Lee was the Claiborne Parish officer on patrol near Corney Lake, which is located near Kisat-chie National Forest. Deputy Lee testified that, on July 17 at approximately 5:30 p.m., he observed a small blue Datsun automobile coming out of a log road in from the national forest. When he saw the blue Datsun coming out, he slowed down to about 15 MPH to see what the car was doing coming out of the woods. He stated that he didn't stop because there are always people coming out of the woods. According to the deputy, the Datsun stopped when it saw him. There was no doubt that the driver had observed him in the patrol car. He was not more than 30 feet away. Deputy Lee then proceeded on and went around a curve. He could still observe the blue vehicle in his rear view mirror and the car never moved. Lee claimed that he proceeded on down the road and took a left, going onto Lake Road. The deputy was even able to identify defendant as the operator of the blue vehicle.
Concerning this alleged attempt on the part of Parker to avoid detection by the patrol car, we note that defendant himself gave a similar version of events:
I saw a Sheriff's car pass right in front of me and go on I know he saw me because he slowed up I said I'll catch him this is my lucky day by the time I got down the hill and to the road he had gone around the curve and I didn't catch him I drove on down the road and came to a church and they were ganging up around the church door.
On cross examination of this witness, defendant's counsel was able to demonstrate defendant's difficulty in catching the officer's vehicle: "So, if someone had picked up and followed you and not known that you had turned off, he would have come out by the church, is that right?" To this inquiry, the deputy responded affirmatively. Evidently, it would have been impossible to follow the patrol car not knowing that it turned off the road. Further, the officer's testimony supported defendant's claim that continuing down the road led him to a church.
Deputy Lee also testified that when he was notified that two people had been killed on the log road in question, he went back there and found the bodies of James Parker and Wilbur Edwards. Edwards was laying face down on the ground, and a .22 rifle was clutched in his hands underneath him. It had one .22 caliber bullet jammed in the cylinder. James Parker was lying on his back about ten feet away from Edwards. This statement by the officer concerning the positioning of the bodies gave credibility to defendant's version of his half brother's and father's deaths. Further, defendant stated that Edwards "hovered" over him as defendant shot in self defense. Armed with this statement, the state clearly could have offered evidence establishing the angle at which the bullets entered Edwards' body, as well as the possible existence of powder burns on the half brother's body. Because this was never done, the defendant's explanation appears, at the very least, as plausible as the state's explanation.
We are also of the opinion that defendant's possession of the murder weapons when taken into police custody was not incriminating. Parker, in his statement, claimed that as Edwards approached him at his workshed, Edwards had the .32 Smith & Wesson pistol in his waistband. This gun was used to kill the mother, who had already been shot before Edwards allegedly abducted defendant, and is the same pistol Parker claims he wrestled away from his brother and used in self defense. According to Parker, he carried the pistol with him when he travelled from Lake Corney to the Vernon Parish Sheriff's Office. Defendant's explanation as to his possession of this firearm is totally consistent with his expía- nation of the shooting. Further, the state offered no evidence which refuted defendant's claim that his half brother shot defendant's dog. The record is void as to any other reference to the dog except in defendant's statement to Deputy Rodina.
Defendant's story about his half brother ordering him to pick up the .22 caliber sawed off rifle apparently creates an inconsistency in his statement. As noted by the state, if this .22 rifle was in defendant's possession, how could the half brother have used it to kill defendant's sister? However, we note that the state failed to offer any evidence as to the sister's time of death, or her whereabouts before her death. There was some evidence which indicated that Au-dry Parker had been dragged to the place where her body was found. Complicating this theory is the fact that the .22 bullet, which originated from the sawed off .22 rifle, was found beneath her head at a place which could have been observed from the workshop. Though Parker claimed he had been at the workshop since breakfast, it is conceivable that the sister could have been killed elsewhere earlier in the morning and the rifle was, in some manner, returned to the workshop before Parker became aware of her death. This conclusion is supported by defendant's statement, in which he contended that on the morning of the homicides, his half brother had been working on his sister's car in the back yard and that he had only heard a single gunshot. Defendant stated that he didn't know his sister was dead until his brother told him after lunch. Further, defendant claims that when he accompanied his half brother into the family house in search of ammunition for the .22 rifle, "he (Edwards) had already gotten one box of ammo."
The state also failed to establish the kind of wound defendant had when he arrived at the sheriff's office and presented inconsistent evidence as to its severity. No evidence was offered by the state to establish that defendant's wound was not the result of a gunshot; nor did the state ever attempt to determine whether the wound was self inflicted, or the result of a struggle with another individual. Further, the state's own witnesses gave conflicting testimony concerning the seriousness of Parker's wound. The testimony established that distance between the point of entry and exit could have been as close as one inch, or as distant as six inches.
Defendant, by this assignment of error, asserts that his conviction should be set aside because there is insufficient evidence to establish his guilt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The Jackson standard requires this Court to determine whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, accepting the facts most favorable to the prosecution. Further where, as in this ease, defendant's guilt is supported entirely by circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. R.S. 15:438. Correlating this rule relative to circumstantial evidence with Jackson v. Virginia, we concluded in State v. Austin, 399 So.2d 158 (La.1981), that: "when we review a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence we must determine that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded."
We are of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence presented by the state did not establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For its part, the state established that defendant arrived at the sheriff's office with the .32 caliber pistol used to kill his mother and stepbrother and alerted the officers to the location of the sawed off .22 caliber rifle used to kill his sister. Further, the state produced witnesses whose accounts of defendant's movements on July 17 were clearly inconsistent with Parker's claims of his forced abduction. Finally, the written confession contained at least one major inconsistency — his sister was killed with the sawed off .22 caliber rifle which Parker claimed was with him in the work shed when Edwards appeared after killing both the mother and sister. The state claims that this circumstantial evidence was of sufficient magnitude to refute Parker's version of the homicides and, thus, exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of defendant's guilt.
We acknowledge that the state, by establishing certain flaws in defendant's statement, questioned the veracity of Parker's account. On the other hand, there is much evidence which corroborates that statement, especially concerning the killing of Wilbur Edwards and his father. Parker placed himself and Edwards at the residence when his mother was killed. The state offered no evidence to exclude the presence of Edwards so as to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant, and defendant alone, was the only one who could have killed his mother. But, after all, no evidence was offered to establish the time of death of any of the victims.
With regard to his sister, a murder for which he is not being tried, the exact location where she was killed is somewhat clouded, as evidence at the scene suggested she might have been dragged to the spot where she was found. A fact casting doubt on this theory is that the bullet which killed her was found beneath her head. The evidence could be viewed as preponderating that, more probably than not, defendant was lying, and he killed his mother and the rest of his family, but that is not the test. The burden of proof was on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by excluding every reasonable hypothesis of defendant's innocence. Considering the totality of the evidence corroborating his version as to how the homicides occurred, we are of the opinion that all reasonable hypotheses of his innocence were not excluded, thus preventing us from having that abiding conviction that it was defendant, and defendant alone, who killed his mother.
Accordingly, the conviction of Burl L. Parker for first degree murder is reversed.
REVERSED.
MARCUS and WATSON, JJ., dissent and assign reasons.
BOWES, J., dissents and will assign reasons.
Judges Fred S. Bowes, Nestor L. Currault, Jr., and Edward A. Dufresne, of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, participated in this decision as Associate Justices pro tempore, joined by Chief Justice Dixon and Associate Justices Marcus, Blanche and Watson.