State v. Metoyer
266 So. 3d 943 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Armed robbery does not require an explicit verbal demand for property if the defendant uses force with a dangerous weapon to disable the victim and takes property that was in the victim's immediate control, thereby depriving the victim of the ability to prevent the taking.
Facts:
- On May 24, 2017, Andrew J. Metoyer shot Jereme Banks nine times in Caddo Parish and stole Banks's vehicle.
- Banks had known Metoyer for approximately 15 years and considered their relationship a friendship, but had recently developed a "weird feeling" from Metoyer and asked him to stay away, even contacting Metoyer's father about mental health treatment.
- Three to four weeks before the shooting, Metoyer came to Banks's house at 3:00 or 4:00 a.m., pounding on the door and asking to use the restroom, after which Banks again asked Metoyer to stop coming over.
- On May 24, 2017, around 11:00 a.m., Banks was at a Texaco station checking fluids under the hood of his car when Metoyer approached him.
- Metoyer pulled out a gun from under his arm and shot Banks multiple times, with the first shot shattering his femur and preventing him from moving.
- After continuing to shoot Banks, Metoyer entered Banks's vehicle and drove off, striking Banks with the vehicle as he left.
- Banks was transported to University Health Hospital, where he identified Metoyer as the shooter, having suffered nine gunshot wounds, a broken right femur, and a collapsed right lung, requiring four surgeries and two weeks in ICU.
- Banks's vehicle was later located by police approximately two blocks from the Texaco station with its hood still propped open.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew J. Metoyer was charged by bill of information with the attempted second degree murder of Jereme Banks and with armed robbery in Caddo Parish.
- A bench trial commenced on May 21, 2018, where the trial court found Metoyer guilty as charged of both offenses.
- Metoyer's motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal was denied by the trial court on June 14, 2018.
- Metoyer was sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment for attempted second degree murder and 35 years' imprisonment for armed robbery, to be served concurrently with each other.
- Metoyer's motion to reconsider sentence was denied by the trial court on July 19, 2018.
- Metoyer appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of armed robbery, to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, 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:
Is the evidence sufficient to convict a defendant of armed robbery when the defendant uses armed force to disable the victim and then takes the victim's property, even without a verbal demand for that property?
Opinions:
Majority - Pitman, J.
No, a conviction for armed robbery does not require proof that the defendant verbally demanded property from the victim; it is sufficient that the property was taken by force or intimidation while armed with a dangerous weapon, thereby depriving the victim of the ability to prevent the taking. The court affirmed the conviction, applying the Jackson v. Virginia standard of review, which requires determining whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Armed robbery, under La. R.S. 14:64, is defined as the taking of anything of value from the person or immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon. The state presented evidence that Metoyer concededly shot Banks repeatedly, clearly using force while armed with a dangerous weapon. Banks's vehicle was in his immediate control prior to the shooting. The extreme force used rendered Banks unable to prevent the taking, satisfying the intimidation and force elements. The court emphasized, citing State v. Long, that property must be "sufficiently under the victim's control that, absent violence or intimidation, the victim could have prevented the taking." The lack of a verbal demand for the vehicle was irrelevant, as jurisprudence does not require it. Furthermore, the fact that Metoyer abandoned the vehicle only blocks from the scene was irrelevant to the 'taking' element, as "the slightest deprivation for the slightest period of time" is sufficient. Thus, a rational trier of fact could find all elements of armed robbery proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies that an explicit verbal demand for property is not a prerequisite for an armed robbery conviction. It reinforces the principle that the sheer act of disabling a victim through extreme armed force, followed by the taking of their property, inherently fulfills the "use of force or intimidation" element. This ruling helps ensure that violent offenders who employ overwhelming force to seize property cannot evade an armed robbery charge merely by refraining from uttering a demand. Future cases will likely cite this decision to establish armed robbery where violence directly facilitates the taking, without requiring a direct verbal exchange regarding the property.
