State v. Blow
46 So. 3d 735, 2010 WL 3156820, 2010 La. App. LEXIS 1148 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient to support a conviction for solicitation for murder. Under Louisiana law, intentionally soliciting a person to find someone to commit a murder is legally equivalent to soliciting that person to commit the murder themselves.
Facts:
- In 2004, while having an extramarital affair with Edward Glover, Lynette Blow asked him if he or someone he knew would kill her husband, Michael Blow, for $10,000. Glover declined.
- In 2007, Lynette Blow asked a former coworker, Wayne McKinney, to find someone to kill her husband, Michael Blow, again offering a payment of $10,000.
- In early 2008, Michael Blow grew suspicious of his wife's infidelity and potential plans to harm him after being warned by an employee.
- On June 14, 2008, Lynette Blow made a 911 call reporting a home invasion.
- Police arrived at the residence to find Michael Blow suffering from shotgun wounds.
- Lynette Blow was located in a back bedroom, from which an officer helped her exit through a window.
- The subsequent investigation into the shooting revealed that the crime scene appeared staged, nothing was stolen, and led detectives to Edward Glover and Wayne McKinney, who reported the prior solicitations.
Procedural Posture:
- Lynette Gail Blow was charged in a Louisiana trial court with two counts of solicitation for murder.
- A jury found Blow guilty on both counts.
- The trial court sentenced her to serve 15 years at hard labor on each count, to run concurrently.
- Blow filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, which the trial court denied.
- Blow, as appellant, appealed her convictions and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the testimony of one witness for each of two separate incidents, where the defendant allegedly asked one person to kill her husband and another to find someone to kill her husband, provide sufficient evidence to support two convictions for solicitation for murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Drew, J.
Yes, the testimony of a single witness for each count provides sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The jury is the arbiter of credibility, and if it chooses to believe the testimony of a single witness that is not internally contradictory or irreconcilable with physical evidence, that testimony is sufficient to support a conviction. The court found that the jury apparently believed the testimonies of Edward Glover and Wayne McKinney. Furthermore, there is no appreciable legal difference between asking a person to commit a murder and asking that person to find someone to commit the murder; both acts satisfy the elements of solicitation for murder under La. R.S. 14:28.1. While some evidence of other bad acts (food stamp fraud) was admitted in error, the error was harmless and the verdict was not attributable to it given the overwhelming weight of the solicitation testimony.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the fundamental principle that appellate courts defer to the jury's assessment of witness credibility. It clarifies the scope of Louisiana's solicitation for murder statute, establishing that an indirect request—asking someone to find a killer—carries the same legal weight as a direct request to commit the act. This precedent strengthens the state's ability to prosecute solicitation cases that rely heavily on testimonial evidence from the person who was solicited, even without direct physical corroboration of the solicitation itself. The court's harmless error analysis also demonstrates that minor evidentiary errors at trial will not overturn a conviction where the core evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
