State v. Tezeno
507 So.2d 291 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for second-degree murder will be upheld against an intoxication defense if a rational jury could find the defendant possessed specific intent based on their purposeful actions during and after the crime. Additionally, photographs of a victim are admissible if their probative value in corroborating testimony, proving intent, and showing the nature of wounds outweighs any potential for unfair prejudicial effect.
Facts:
- Floyd Tezeno and the victim, Cassie Frank, lived together as common-law spouses and had a one-year-old son before Frank and her children moved into her mother's apartment.
- Shortly after midnight on October 4, 1985, Tezeno arrived at the mother's apartment, where Frank let him in.
- Tezeno entered the living room and fired a .25 caliber pistol at Frank, missing with the first shot but striking her in the neck with the second.
- After Frank was shot, her mother, Elsie Frank, wrestled the gun away from Tezeno.
- Tezeno then asked to see his son because he knew he was "going to prison."
- After seeing his son, Tezeno exited the apartment and chased the wounded Frank, who had fled out the back door.
- Frank was found moments later at the rear of the building, dead on a back porch with a pitchfork embedded in her face.
- A forensic pathologist determined that Frank died from blood loss caused by the combined effects of the gunshot wound to a major artery and the facial lacerations from the pitchfork.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana prosecuted Floyd Tezeno in a state trial court on the charge of second-degree murder.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty.
- Tezeno filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict for second-degree murder.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial.
- The trial court sentenced Tezeno to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
- Tezeno (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, with the State of Louisiana as the appellee.
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 exist to prove a defendant had the specific intent required for second-degree murder when he claims intoxication, and is it an error for a trial court to admit photographs of the victim's body and wounds that are relevant to proving intent and corroborating testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Doucet, J.
Yes, sufficient evidence exists, and admitting the photographs was not an error. A rational jury could find that the defendant possessed the requisite specific intent for second-degree murder despite evidence of intoxication, and the trial court did not err in admitting relevant photographs whose probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. Regarding the intoxication defense, the burden is on the defendant to prove it negated specific intent. The court found that Tezeno's purposeful actions—firing multiple shots, chasing the victim after she fled, using a second weapon (a pitchfork), and his lucid statement that he was "going to prison"—provided a sufficient basis for a rational jury to find he had the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, despite testimony that he had been drinking. As for the photographs, the court determined they were highly probative. The crime scene photos corroborated witness testimony about the location of the body and the sequence of events, while the autopsy photos illustrated the nature and severity of the facial wounds, which was relevant to showing Tezeno's continued intent to harm Frank even after shooting her. The court concluded that while the photos were unpleasant, they were not so gruesome as to overwhelm the jury's reason, and their probative value in establishing intent and corroborating evidence outweighed any potential for prejudice.
Concurring - Domengeaux, J.
The author concurred with the majority's decision without writing a separate opinion.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to overturn a jury's finding of fact regarding a defendant's mental state. It demonstrates that an intoxication defense is difficult to sustain when there is circumstantial evidence of purposeful, goal-oriented behavior by the defendant. The decision also affirms the broad discretion granted to trial judges in evidentiary matters, particularly the admission of photographic evidence. It clarifies the balancing test used for such evidence, establishing that photos which help prove a critical element like specific intent or corroborate key testimony are likely to be admitted, even if they are graphic, so long as their probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
