State v. Higgins
898 So. 2d 1219, 2005 WL 737478 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for first-degree felony murder where the only evidence of the underlying felony is the speculative and internally inconsistent testimony of a single eyewitness, which is contradicted by physical evidence and influenced by media reports.
Facts:
- On the night of October 24, 1998, Donald Price left the Boomtown Casino in Harvey, Louisiana after cashing in his winnings.
- Less than twenty minutes after Price left the casino, he was shot once in the head and killed on a street in Marrero.
- Police investigating the scene found Price's wallet containing $223, his watch, a necklace, and his car keys still clutched in his hand; his vehicle was parked nearby.
- A local resident, Ruby Wells, heard the gunshot, saw a man run through her yard, and called the police.
- In Wells's yard, police found a flannel shirt, gloves, the murder weapon, and a bandana containing trace amounts of Shawn Higgins's blood.
- Seventeen months after the murder, Wanda Brown came forward, claiming she had witnessed the shooting.
- Brown, who admitted to being heavily intoxicated at the time of the incident, identified Higgins as the shooter but gave conflicting reasons for her belief that a robbery was being attempted, at one point attributing this belief to media reports she had seen after the event.
Procedural Posture:
- A Jefferson Parish grand jury indicted Shawn Higgins for the first-degree murder of Donald Price.
- Higgins filed a motion to quash the indictment, which the trial court denied.
- Higgins also filed a motion to suppress the out-of-court identification made by witness Wanda Brown, which the trial court denied.
- Following a trial, a jury found Higgins guilty as charged of first-degree murder.
- In the subsequent penalty phase, the jury recommended a sentence of death, finding two aggravating circumstances.
- The trial court formally sentenced Higgins to death.
- Higgins brought a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 State present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a killing occurred during an attempted armed robbery when the only evidence establishing the attempt is the testimony of a single, intoxicated eyewitness whose belief was influenced by media coverage and contradicted by physical evidence showing nothing was taken from the victim?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kimball
No. The evidence is insufficient to support the underlying felony of attempted armed robbery, and therefore the conviction for first-degree murder cannot stand. The State's case for attempted armed robbery rested entirely on the testimony of Wanda Brown, whose conclusions were speculative, internally inconsistent, and admittedly influenced by post-event media coverage. Her testimony was contradicted by the physical evidence, which showed that none of the victim's valuables were taken. Following the precedent in State v. Bright, a jury cannot be permitted to speculate on an essential element of the crime when reasonable doubt must exist. However, Brown's identification of Higgins as the shooter was credible because it was corroborated by the physical DNA evidence linking Higgins to the bandana found with the murder weapon. Therefore, while the evidence does not support first-degree murder, it is sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder.
Dissenting - Justice Johnson
Wanda Brown's testimony was so riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and was influenced by her severe intoxication that it was completely unreliable. No rational jury could find her identification of Shawn Higgins credible. Her story about the events leading up to and after the shooting is implausible and conflicts with physical evidence. Because her testimony is the primary basis for placing Higgins at the scene, and it is entirely incredible, the evidence is insufficient to prove Higgins's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for any crime, including second-degree murder. The conviction should be reversed entirely.
Dissenting - Justice Traylor
If Wanda Brown's testimony is deemed sufficiently reliable to identify the defendant as the perpetrator, then it should also be considered sufficiently reliable to support the jury's finding that an attempted robbery was taking place. The majority improperly separates the credibility of her testimony, accepting the part that identifies the shooter while rejecting the part that describes the context of the shooting. The jury, as the trier of fact, was entitled to believe her entire account, and its verdict of guilty of first-degree murder should be upheld.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical role of appellate review in scrutinizing jury verdicts for sufficiency of the evidence under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. It establishes that even if a jury finds a witness credible enough to secure a conviction, an appellate court can find that witness's testimony on a specific, essential element of the crime to be legally insufficient if it is purely speculative and contradicted by physical evidence. The court's willingness to parse a single witness's testimony—accepting the DNA-corroborated identification while rejecting the uncorroborated robbery theory—sets a precedent for how courts can modify verdicts to a lesser-included offense when the evidence supports some, but not all, elements of the primary charge. This decision reinforces that a conviction cannot rest on mere conjecture, especially for an aggravating element in a capital case.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Higgins