State v. Ordodi
2006 WL 3423234, 946 So. 2d 654 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An overt act sufficient for an attempt conviction can be established by the totality of the circumstances, even if the defendant has not taken the final step toward consummating the crime, such as brandishing a weapon or making a demand.
Facts:
- Leslie Otto Ordodi, who was experiencing financial difficulties, drove his truck to a Regions Bank on May 28, 2004.
- A witness, Thelma Broussard, observed Ordodi take a gun from a plastic bag and place it in his pants pocket before entering the bank.
- Ordodi, wearing a baseball cap and dark sunglasses, entered the Regions Bank and inquired with employees about opening an account, giving the false name 'Roy'.
- He appeared nervous and left the bank after a brief conversation, taking a brochure. His truck was left running in the parking lot during this time.
- Ordodi then drove to a nearby Bank One, where his truck's license plate had been removed and placed on the front seat along with the wrench used to remove it. He again left the engine running.
- Inside Bank One, still wearing the cap and sunglasses, Ordodi again inquired about opening an account, appeared fidgety, and left shortly after receiving a brochure.
- Ordodi never displayed his weapon or made any threats or demands for money at either bank.
- Upon exiting Bank One, police arrested Ordodi and found a loaded .38 caliber revolver and an empty plastic bag in his pockets.
Procedural Posture:
- Leslie Otto Ordodi was charged by bill of information in a Louisiana trial court with two counts of attempted armed robbery.
- Following a trial, a jury found Ordodi guilty on both counts.
- The trial court sentenced Ordodi to concurrent terms of three years imprisonment at hard labor.
- Ordodi, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal reversed Ordodi's conviction and sentence, finding the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
- The State of Louisiana, as applicant, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a defendant's actions of arming himself, traveling to two banks, concealing his identity, removing his vehicle's license plate, and leaving the engine running, constitute an overt act sufficient to support a conviction for attempted armed robbery, even if he never brandished the weapon or made a demand for money?
Opinions:
Majority - Traylor, Justice
Yes, a defendant's actions can constitute a sufficient overt act for attempted armed robbery based on the totality of the circumstances. To prove attempt, the state must show specific intent and an overt act that goes beyond mere preparation. Specific intent can be inferred from the circumstances: Ordodi's financial distress, arming himself, concealing his identity, removing his license plate, and leaving his truck running for a quick escape all support the jury's finding of intent. The distinction between mere preparation and an overt act is a question of fact for the jury, evaluated on a continuum. The jury's finding that Ordodi's collective actions—entering two banks armed and disguised with a getaway vehicle ready—crossed the line from preparation to an overt act was not irrational. The overt act need not be the final step, and a defendant's voluntary withdrawal after culpability has already attached is not a defense.
Dissenting - Calogero, Chief Justice
No, the defendant's actions do not constitute a sufficient overt act for attempted armed robbery. The evidence presented by the state is insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant's actions, both outside and inside the banks, never went beyond mere preparation. No act or omission can rationally be deemed an overt act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the completion of an armed robbery.
Dissenting - Kimball, Justice
No, the defendant's actions do not constitute a sufficient overt act for attempted armed robbery. The state's evidence showed only mere preparation, such as loading a gun and going to a location. The defendant committed no act directly tending toward carrying out the crime; he made no threats, did not demand anything of value, and did not brandish the weapon. His actions of removing the license plate, leaving the truck running, and carrying the gun are classic preparatory acts, not an overt act in furtherance of the crime.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the nebulous boundary between 'mere preparation' and an 'overt act' under Louisiana's attempt statute. By upholding the conviction, the court affirmed that a jury can find an overt act from a collection of preparatory actions that, viewed in their totality, demonstrate the crime is actively in progress. This ruling lowers the threshold for what constitutes an attempt, allowing for convictions even when the defendant desists before committing a traditionally proximate act like brandishing a weapon. Consequently, it gives prosecutors more latitude in charging attempt crimes and may make it more difficult for defendants to argue their conduct was only preparatory, even if they voluntarily abandon the criminal enterprise.
