State v. Sepulvado
10 La.App. 3 Cir. 435, 59 So. 3d 463, 2011 La. App. LEXIS 276 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for manslaughter is supported by sufficient evidence if a rational trier of fact could find the defendant committed an underlying felony, such as battery, that resulted in the victim's death, or if the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for the greater charge of second degree murder, allowing for a compromise verdict.
Facts:
- Sherri Sepulvado and LaTasha Nigerville had an acrimonious relationship, which included a physical altercation two weeks prior to the incident.
- On September 24, 2006, Sepulvado was at Nigerville's home with several other individuals, using illegal drugs.
- During the evening, Sepulvado and Nigerville became involved in a physical altercation.
- Sepulvado struck Nigerville in the back of the head with a small bat, causing Nigerville to fall down and become unconscious.
- Two other individuals present removed Nigerville's clothes while she was unconscious.
- Sepulvado and another individual, Chad Rivers, placed a mattress on top of Nigerville's body.
- Gasoline was poured on the mattress, and it was set on fire by Sepulvado and/or Rivers.
- The entire group then fled the residence, and firefighters later discovered Nigerville's body in the burned home.
Procedural Posture:
- Sherri Sepulvado was indicted for first degree murder and aggravated arson.
- The State of Louisiana later amended the charge to second degree murder and aggravated arson.
- Following a bench trial in a state trial court, Sepulvado was convicted of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter and of aggravated arson.
- The trial court sentenced Sepulvado to thirty years for manslaughter and fifteen years for aggravated arson.
- Sepulvado filed a motion for a new trial on the arson charge after a co-defendant's arson conviction was vacated on the grounds that the victim was already deceased when the fire was set.
- The trial court denied the motion but re-sentenced her on the arson conviction to twelve years.
- Sepulvado appealed her convictions for manslaughter and arson to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third 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 sufficient evidence support a conviction for manslaughter when the defendant struck the victim with a bat, rendering her unconscious, and then participated in setting her on fire, even if the exact cause of death is medically uncertain?
Opinions:
Majority - Amy, Judge
Yes, sufficient evidence supports the conviction for manslaughter. The conviction can be upheld on two alternative theories. First, under Louisiana's felony-manslaughter rule, the evidence showed the defendant committed a second-degree battery—a felony—by striking the victim with a bat and rendering her unconscious, which ultimately led to her death. Second, the evidence presented was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the defendant guilty of the originally charged offense of second degree murder, which is a killing with the specific intent to inflict great bodily harm. Therefore, the manslaughter verdict is permissible as a 'compromise verdict' between second degree murder and not guilty. An appellate court will not second-guess the fact-finder's credibility determinations among conflicting witness testimonies as long as a rational basis for the verdict exists when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high level of deference appellate courts grant to the credibility determinations of the trier of fact, especially in cases with conflicting witness testimony. It solidifies that a manslaughter conviction can stand on firm legal ground even without a definitive medical cause of death, provided the defendant's felonious actions initiated the chain of events that resulted in the death. The court's acceptance of the 'compromise verdict' theory further illustrates that a conviction for a lesser included offense will be upheld as long as the evidence was sufficient to convict on the greater, originally charged offense.
