State v. Tolliver
2002 WL 888919, 818 So.2d 310 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person can be convicted as a principal to armed robbery if they knowingly participate in the planning or execution of the crime, and such participation can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence and credible testimony of the defendant's own admissions.
Facts:
- On the evening of October 22, 2000, Aaron Tolliver, Jr. was seen with 17-year-old Jeremy Burton in a car just before midnight.
- Shortly after midnight, Tolliver entered the Palms Motel in Monroe and began filling out a registration form at the front desk.
- While Tolliver was at the counter, a masked gunman, later identified as Burton, entered the motel office, fired a pistol into the ceiling, and demanded money from the clerk, Michael Browning.
- Burton took three $5 bills from the register and Browning's pistol from under the counter.
- During the robbery, Burton did not threaten, point his weapon at, or attempt to rob Tolliver.
- Burton was later killed in an exchange of gunfire with police a short distance from the motel.
- The following day, Tolliver confessed to Burton's family members that he and Burton had planned the robbery together to 'make a come-up' (get money), but that 'something didn't go right.'
Procedural Posture:
- Aaron Tolliver, Jr. was tried before a jury in a Louisiana trial court.
- The jury found Tolliver guilty of armed robbery.
- The trial court sentenced Tolliver to 25 years at hard labor.
- Tolliver filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, which the trial court denied.
- Tolliver (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, against the State of Louisiana (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:
Is circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's post-crime admissions to third parties, sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly participated in the planning and execution of an armed robbery, thereby making him a principal to the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Caraway, J.
Yes. The evidence was sufficient to prove Tolliver was a principal to the armed robbery. Under Louisiana law, a principal is any person concerned in the commission of a crime, including those who aid, abet, or counsel another to commit it, provided they knowingly participate. The court defers to the jury's role as the trier of fact, which was entitled to find the testimony of Burton's family members regarding Tolliver's admissions to be credible. This direct evidence of his confession, combined with strong circumstantial evidence—such as being with Burton shortly before the crime, acting as a decoy at the motel counter, and not being threatened by the gunman—was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Tolliver knowingly participated in planning and executing the robbery.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the legal principle that a conviction for being a principal to a crime does not require direct physical commission of the actus reus, such as holding the weapon. It emphasizes that a defendant's role as a planner or lookout is sufficient for criminal liability. The ruling also underscores the high deference appellate courts give to a jury's credibility determinations, making it difficult for defendants to challenge convictions based solely on conflicting witness testimony. This case serves as a practical example for prosecutors on how to build a case against an accomplice using a combination of circumstantial evidence and testimony about the defendant's own out-of-court admissions.
