State v. Boyette

Louisiana Court of Appeal
264 So.3d 625 (2019)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A warrantless search is valid under the Fourth Amendment and Louisiana Constitution if conducted pursuant to free and voluntary consent given by a person with common authority over the premises, provided the search does not exceed the objectively reasonable scope of the consent; furthermore, habitual offender proceedings, which enhance penalties for previously charged crimes, do not require grand jury indictment as they do not constitute a new substantive charge, and appellate courts review sufficiency of evidence under the Jackson v. Virginia standard, deferring to the jury's credibility determinations.

Facts:

On September 3, 2014, Chastity Williams and Roderick Hillard were awakened in their home around 3:00 a.m. by two intruders who had entered through a window.
One intruder, wearing black Nike tennis shoes, dark jeans, a bandana, sunglasses, and a hood, waved a black automatic handgun, while the other, wearing boots, searched belongings.
The intruders stole $1,300 from Williams’s pants and both Williams's and Hillard's cell phones, with the tennis shoe-wearing intruder hitting Williams on the head with the gun before fleeing.
Immediately after the robbery, Williams called 9-1-1 and identified "Darandall" (Defendant Darandall Boyette) and "Pee Wee" (Nicholas Crow) as the robbers, stating she had known Boyette for years and he had visited her house the day before.
Chief Mark Dodd investigated the scene, observing two sets of shoeprints (tennis shoes and deep-lugged boots) outside the entry window that matched Williams's descriptions.
Chief Dodd went to 359 Alice Street, the trailer belonging to Boyette's father, Lugene Boyette, where Darandall Boyette was known to stay, and informed Lugene that his son was implicated in an armed robbery, requesting permission to search the "premises," to which Lugene responded, "Okay."
During the warrantless search, Chief Dodd found six $100 bills under a mattress in Darandall Boyette's bedroom and discovered a pair of black Nike tennis shoes with white gloves stuffed inside in an outdoor shed; the zig-zag tread pattern on these Nike shoes matched the shoeprints found at the crime scene and on Lugene's property.
Darandall Boyette sent text messages to Chastity Williams, apologizing for "wat I did" and asking her to sign an affidavit stating she was not positive he was one of the robbers, and forensic document examiner Robert Foley testified that Boyette also wrote a letter to a judge admitting he "played a part in the robbery."

Procedural Posture:

On October 7, 2014, the state filed a bill of information charging Darandall Boyette with armed robbery with a firearm.
On May 26, 2016, a district judge signed an order recusing the district attorney for the Third Judicial District and his office from the prosecution of this case and appointing the Attorney General's Office as the prosecutor.
On September 14, 2016, Darandall Boyette filed a pro se motion to suppress evidence obtained through the search of his father's house.
On September 19, 2016, a hearing on the motion to suppress was held, and the trial court denied the motion.
On February 21, 2017, the state filed an amended bill of information.
On March 27, 2017, the trial began.
On March 29, 2017, the jury found Darandall Boyette guilty as charged of armed robbery using a firearm.
On April 7, 2017, the state filed a bill of information and requested that the trial court sentence Boyette as a fourth felony offender.
On April 19, 2017, the trial court initially sentenced Boyette to 25 years for armed robbery and 5 years for firearm use, to run consecutively.
On May 10, 2017, the trial court found Boyette to be a habitual offender and rescinded its prior sentence, instead sentencing him to 99 years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
On May 25, 2017, Darandall Boyette filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence.
On June 28, 2017, a hearing was held on the motion to reconsider sentence.
On September 18, 2017, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration.
Darandall Boyette appealed his conviction and sentence.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

1. Was there sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find Darandall Boyette guilty of armed robbery with a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt? 2. Was the warrantless search of Darandall Boyette's father's residence, including his bedroom and an outdoor shed, valid under the Fourth Amendment based on the father's oral consent? 3. Is a grand jury indictment required to institute habitual offender proceedings that could result in a life sentence?

Opinions:

Majority - Pitman, J.

1. Yes, the state provided sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find Darandall Boyette guilty of armed robbery with a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that Chastity Williams's consistent identification of Boyette and Crow, made immediately after the robbery and maintained through trial, was compelling, especially given her prior acquaintance with Boyette. Her detailed description of the intruders' shoes was corroborated by the matching Nike tennis shoes and shoeprints found at Boyette's father's residence and the crime scene. Further, Boyette's own text messages apologizing for his actions and seeking an affidavit from Williams, coupled with his letter to a judge admitting to playing a part in the robbery, provided strong circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized that when there is conflicting testimony, the resolution of witness credibility is solely for the jury, and appellate courts must defer to those determinations if a rational jury could have found guilt. 2. No, the warrantless search of Darandall Boyette's father's residence, including his bedroom and an outdoor shed, was valid under the Fourth Amendment based on the father's free and voluntary oral consent. The court determined that Lugene Boyette, as the owner and an occupant of the trailer, possessed common authority to consent to a search of the entire premises. Chief Dodd's testimony, which was undisputed and uncontradicted by Lugene (who was present at the suppression hearing), indicated that Lugene gave consent freely and voluntarily, without coercion, threats, or duress, and did not limit the scope of the search of his "premises." The court reiterated that oral consent is sufficient and that a search within the scope of such consent, encompassing the entire property including a son's bedroom and an outdoor shed, is objectively reasonable. 3. No, a grand jury indictment is not required to institute habitual offender proceedings, even when the enhanced penalty exposes a defendant to a life sentence. The court affirmed that the constitutional and statutory requirements for a grand jury indictment apply only to the institution of prosecution for capital crimes or crimes punishable by life imprisonment as initially charged. Habitual offender bills of information do not charge a new substantive crime but merely serve as a method of informing the sentencing court of prior convictions and requesting an enhancement of the penalty for the crime of which the defendant has already been convicted. Moreover, the defendant waived this argument by failing to file a motion to quash the bill of information in a timely manner.

Analysis:

This case reinforces several crucial legal principles for law students. First, it underscores the deferential standard of review for sufficiency of evidence claims, particularly regarding a jury's credibility determinations, making it challenging to overturn a conviction on appeal if any rational fact-finder could have reached the verdict. Second, it clarifies the scope and limitations of the constitutional requirement for grand jury indictments, distinguishing between the initial charging of a capital or life-imprisonment offense and subsequent habitual offender proceedings that merely enhance penalties. Finally, the decision provides a practical illustration of the valid parameters of a consent search, emphasizing that oral consent from a resident with common authority can broadly justify a warrantless search of a home and its surrounding property unless explicitly limited, thereby highlighting the importance of clear communication during such encounters.

🤖 Gunnerbot:

Query State v. Boyette (2019) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.

Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.