State v. Weary
931 So. 2d 297 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The testimony of a single witness, even one with inconsistencies in prior statements and a plea agreement, can be sufficient for a rational jury to find the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. A change of venue is not required due to extensive pretrial publicity if a thorough and individual voir dire process demonstrates that a fair and impartial jury can be seated.
Facts:
- On the evening of April 4, 1998, Michael Weary, after losing his money in a dice game, stated he needed more money and was going to rob someone.
- Shortly after, a red car driven by 16-year-old pizza delivery boy Eric Walber passed by the group.
- When Walber drove by again, Randy Hutchinson flagged him down, and Weary immediately ran to the driver's side and began punching Walber through the open window.
- Weary and Hutchinson pulled Walber from his car, beat him, and stole his wallet and ring.
- Weary, Hutchinson, Sam Scott, and others then forced Walber into the hatchback of his own car.
- The group drove Walber to several different remote locations, repeatedly removing him from the car and beating him over a prolonged period.
- At the final location on Crisp Road, Weary and Hutchinson held the badly beaten Walber in the middle of the road while James Skinner drove Walber's car into him, then turned around and ran over him again, and finally backed over his body.
- Walber's body was discovered later that night, and an autopsy confirmed he died from multiple blunt force trauma injuries to his head and body.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Weary was indicted for first-degree murder by a Livingston Parish grand jury on June 7, 2000.
- A different Livingston Parish grand jury re-indicted Weary for the same offense on June 18, 2001.
- The defense filed a motion for a change of venue, arguing that prejudicial pretrial publicity made it impossible to seat a fair jury in Livingston Parish.
- The trial court deferred ruling on the motion until after voir dire and ultimately denied it, finding that an impartial jury could be seated.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial against Weary alone.
- The jury unanimously found Weary guilty of first-degree murder.
- Following a penalty phase hearing, the same jury unanimously recommended a sentence of death.
- Weary filed a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 testimony of a co-participant, despite inconsistencies and a plea deal, sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find the defendant guilty of first-degree murder and to support the aggravating circumstances necessary for a death sentence?
Opinions:
Majority - Traylor, J.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient. A rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each essential element of first-degree murder. The jury was fully aware of the inconsistencies in witness Sam Scott's testimony and his plea agreement, as these issues were central to the defense's cross-examination. It is the role of the jury to make credibility determinations, and a reviewing court may not impinge on that discretion unless necessary to protect due process. Scott's testimony, which identified Weary as the instigator and a key participant in the kidnapping, robbery, and murder, was sufficient to support the conviction. Furthermore, the evidence supported the jury's finding of aggravating circumstances, including that the murder occurred during a second-degree kidnapping and that it was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner, given the prolonged torture and serious physical abuse the victim suffered before his death.
Dissenting - Johnson, J.
No, the conviction and sentence should be reversed because the defendant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial. The trial court erred by denying the motion for a change of venue despite extensive and prejudicial pretrial publicity that saturated the community, with 91.7% of prospective jurors acknowledging familiarity with the case. The cumulative effect of the media coverage and community outrage made a fair trial impossible in that parish. Furthermore, the trial court erroneously denied multiple defense challenges for cause against prospective jurors who expressed clear biases, including those who had already formed an opinion of guilt, would automatically vote for the death penalty upon conviction, or would give more credibility to police witnesses. These errors forced the defense to exhaust its peremptory challenges on biased jurors and ultimately resulted in a jury that was not impartial, thus tainting the entire verdict.
Concurring - Weimer, J.
Yes, the verdict should be affirmed. The majority's resolution of the assignments of error is correct. However, regarding the challenge for cause against juror Tara Matthews, the trial court did not err in denying the challenge. It is unnecessary to reach the issue of waiver, as nothing the prospective juror said rose to the level that would merit a challenge for cause.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high degree of deference appellate courts afford to jury findings, particularly on matters of witness credibility. The court's holding demonstrates that a conviction can stand on the testimony of a single, compromised witness if the jury, after being presented with all impeaching information, finds that testimony credible. The decision also illustrates the high burden a defendant must meet to secure a change of venue, signaling that courts view extensive voir dire as a sufficient remedy for pretrial publicity, short of a 'trial atmosphere utterly corrupted by press coverage.' This solidifies the jury's role as the ultimate arbiter of fact and makes it difficult to overturn convictions based on claims of unreliable testimony or prejudicial media.
