Opinion ID: 1932430
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: assignments of error numbers eleven, thirteen, fifteen and sixteen

Text: Tassin argues that the state's evidence was insufficient to convince a rational jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing of Eddie Martin was not committed in self defense. Tassin also argues there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the three aggravating circumstances found by the jury in the sentencing phase of the trial. Due process requires that a criminal defendant be convicted only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); LSA-R.S. 15:271; State v. Brown, 301 So. 2d 605 (La.1974). The standard of a 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. [16] Tassin is charged with committing the first degree murder of Martin, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:30. The elements of first degree murder proved by the state here were that the murder occurred during the course of an armed robbery, or attempted armed robbery, and that Tassin had the specific intent to kill more than one person. [17] Armed robbery is defined in LSA-R.S. 14:64 as the taking of anything of value from another by force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon. Because Tassin asserted self-defense, the burden was on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not perpetrated in self-defense. State v. Brown, 414 So.2d 726 (La.1982); LSA-R.S. 14:20. The state relied primarily on the testimony of Georgina Tassin and Wayne Stagner to prove the elements of the crime. Regarding the occurrence of an armed robbery, or attempted armed robbery, Georgina's testimony established that the Tassins and Sheila Mills discussed a plan to rob the two men of their money in order to buy drugs, that a gun was obtained from their friends' apartment, [18] that Tassin was in the backseat behind Martin on the left side of the car, that she was on the right side behind Stagner, that Tassin pulled a gun out of his waistband and shot Martin three times in the back and neck area, that Tassin shot Stagner once in the back and once in the leg as he escaped the car, that Tassin pulled Martin's body out of the car and checked his pockets for money, and that Martin's car was taken after Tassin placed Martin's body in a ditch underneath the bridge. Georgina never saw a gun in the possession of Martin or Stagner. Wayne Stagner's testimony corroborated Georgina's regarding the seating arrangement and the shooting. When he reentered the car after letting Sheila out under the bridge, Stagner was shot in the back. He then saw Robert Tassin shoot Martin three times in the back and neck. Tassin shot Stagner again as he was leaving the vehicle, striking him in the left leg. Stagner testified that he and Martin had not consumed any drugs and were not in possession of any weapons. Other state witnesses corroborated the testimony of the two key witnesses. Dr. Alvaro Hunt testified that the wounds on Eddie Martin's body were consistent with Martin being shot from behind at close range. Detective Hibbs, who was in charge of investigating the scene, testified that Martin's body was found in the ditch underneath the bridge. The pockets of Martin's pants had been turned out and his wallet, change, and comb were scattered about the scene. A rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Tassin killed Martin during the perpetration of an armed robbery. Tassin argues that the testimony of Stagner and Georgina was suspect. Georgina testified on direct examination that she had accepted a plea bargain with the state, pleading guilty to armed robbery in exchange for her testimony at her husband's trial. She also testified that she had not been sentenced at the time of trial and was facing a possible sentence of 5 to 99 years imprisonment. [19] Tassin argues that Stagner's testimony was not credible because he had first told the police one story (about hitchhickers), and then told another one. Tassin took the stand in his own defense and testified that it had been Stagner who threatened him with a gun. After wrestling the gun away from Stagner, he panicked and began shooting when he thought Stagner had an additional weapon. He claims the physical evidence supports this theory. Joseph Warren, an expert in forensic biology, testified that the shirt Stagner was wearing that evening contained both Type A and Type O blood. Eddie Martin, Sheila Mills and Wayne Stagner had Type O, while Robert and Georgina Tassin had Type A. Tassin argues this corroborates his story of a struggle over the gun with Stagner during which he cut his hand. Alex Vega, an expert in firearms' identification, testified that the two bullet holes in the automobile were not consistent with someone firing directly from the middle of the backseat. Tassin argues that a watch and chain necklace left on Martin's body were inconsistent with a robbery theory, as was Martin's wallet and beeper which were on the ground. Defense counsel was permitted to investigate fully all contested issues. In an attempt to show Georgina's bias, defense counsel thoroughly explored the terms of her plea bargain with the state. LSA-R.S. 15:492; State v. Brady, 381 So.2d 819 (La. 1980). Stagner's prior inconsistent statement accusing hitchhikers of the crime, and his reason for giving the statement, were elicited in both direct and cross-examination. Therefore, the jury had before it all the available information regarding any bias or inconsistency in the state witnesses' testimony. When there is a conflict in testimony between witnesses, the factfinder must make credibility determinations. State v. Cobbs, 350 So.2d 168 (La.1977). Here, the jury believed the testimony of Georgina Tassin and Wayne Stagner, which was corroborated by the other state witnesses. A rational jury could have found that Tassin had the specific intent to kill or greatly harm more than one person. Specific intent can be inferred from the circumstances. LSA-R.S. 15:445; State v. Williams, 383 So.2d 369 (La.1980), cert. den. 449 U.S. 1103, 101 S.Ct. 899, 66 L.Ed. 2d 828 (1981). A specific intent to kill can be inferred from someone pointing a gun at close range and pulling the trigger. State v. Williams, supra; State v. Procell, 365 So.2d 484 (La.1978). Georgina and Wayne Stagner testified that Tassin shot Martin and Stagner. Tassin admitted the shootings and only contested the circumstances. The state carried its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that this killing was not done in self defense. Although the state did not discuss the bloodstains found on Stagner's shirt, the other evidence overwhelmingly proved that Tassin shot both men in the back, and shot Stagner again while he was trying to escape. Instead of trying to render assistance to Martin, Tassin admitted pulling his body out of the car and leaving the scene. Tassin threw the murder weapon into the canal and drove the car into the canal to destroy evidence. After several months had passed, Tassin admitted the car's whereabouts and assisted in its recovery. Tassin's expert, Vega, admitted that bullet holes in the roof of the car could have been made when a bullet ricocheted off a bone or other part of the car. Vega also admitted he could not be sure about the bullets' angle of exit. The photographs introduced into evidence show the roof was smashed on the driver's side of the car, which rendered any opinion regarding the angle of the bullets speculative. The state argued that Tassin was not concerned about the watch or chain necklace, because he was only interested in cash with which to buy drugs quickly. Tassin's previous employment included fishing and laying carpet, which could account for the scar Tassin displayed to the jury as evidence of his struggle with Stagner. The state proved Tassin's guilt under the Jackson v. Virginia [20] standard. There was no error in the jury's verdict, [21] in the trial court's denial of Tassin's motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal, [22] or the trial court's denial of Tassin's motion for new trial. [23] Assignment of Error Number 13 raises the question of whether the aggravating circumstances found in the sentencing phase of Tassin's trial were supported by the law and evidence. The jury did not err in finding that Tassin was engaged in the perpetration of an armed robbery, [24] or that Tassin knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person. [25] The third aggravating circumstance the jury found was that the offense was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner. [26] However, the Louisiana jurisprudence holds that there must be evidence of torture or the pitiless infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering to support this aggravating circumstance. State v. Monroe, 397 So.2d 1258 (La.1981), cert. den. 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S.Ct. 3571, 77 L.Ed.2d 1411 (1983). These wounds were inflicted to kill, not to maim or to inflict pain. State v. Culberth, 390 So.2d 847 at 851 (La.1980). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that, on their face, the words especially heinous, atrocious or cruel are unconstitutionally vague and cannot support a death penalty as a statutory aggravating circumstance because the phrase leaves a jury with unfettered discretion. Maynard v. Cartwright, ___ U.S. ____, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988). Tassin argues that if one of the aggravating circumstances falls, his sentence of death must be set aside. He claims the jury may have added up the aggravating circumstances and concluded that three aggravating factors compelled a recommendation of death. Under Louisiana's capital sentencing scheme, a sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury finds that at least one statutory aggravating circumstance exists beyond a reasonable doubt. [27] Subsequent invalidation of an aggravating circumstance does not invalidate a death sentence when the evidence supporting it did not inject an arbitrary factor into the proceedings, and at least one aggravating circumstances relied on by the jury is supported by the evidence. State v. Wingo, 457 So.2d 1159 (La.1984), cert. den. 471 U.S. 1030, 105 S.Ct. 2049, 85 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985); State v. Celestine, 443 So.2d 1091 (La.1983), cert. den. 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 224, 83 L.Ed.2d 154 (1984); State v. Sawyer, 442 So.2d 1136 (La.1983), cert. den. 466 U.S. 931, 104 S.Ct. 1719, 80 L.Ed.2d 191 (1984). The evidence introduced to support the heinous aggravating circumstance constituted the res gestae of the offense. No factor was introduced that would make the penalty arbitrary or capricious. Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983). These consolidated assignments have no merit.