State v. Chappelle

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. BRUCE LOCKWOOD CHAPPELLE

2020 KA 0062

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT

November 9, 2020

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

On Appeal from the 32nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Terrebonne State of Louisiana

Trial Court No. 769327

Honorable David W. Arceneaux, Judge Presiding

Joseph L. Waitz, Jr.

District Attorney

Ellen Daigle Doskey

Assistant District Attorney

Houma, Louisiana

Attorneys for Appellee,

State of Louisiana

Bertha M. Hillman

Covington, Louisiana

Attorney for Defendant/Appellant,

Bruce Lockwood Chappelle

BEFORE: McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.

PENZATO, J.

The defendant, Bruce Lockwood Chappelle, was charged by an amended bill of information with theft at a value of twenty-five thousand dollars or more, a violation of La. R.S. 14:67(B)(1). He pled not guilty. After a trial by jury, he was found guilty as charged. The trial court denied the defendant's motions for post-verdict judgment of acquittal and new trial. The State filed a habitual offender bill of information, and the defendant was subsequently adjudicated a third-felony habitual offender pursuant to La. R.S. 15:529.1(A)(3)(a). The trial court sentenced the defendant to one hundred sixty months imprisonment at hard labor. The defendant now appeals, assigning as error the trial court's denial of his challenge for cause of a prospective juror during voir dire. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On June 17, 2017, Ron Weimer, the general manager of Geri Lynn Nissan in Houma, Louisiana, reviewed surveillance footage after realizing that a white 2017 Nissan Altima was missing from the lot. The surveillance footage showed the vehicle being driven off of the lot around 6:30 a.m., five days earlier, on June 12, 2017. Detective Lieutenant Billy Dupre, Jr. of the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's Office (TPSO) was assigned to investigate the theft. In addition to providing Detective Dupre with a video clip of the surveillance footage that he recorded with his cell phone, Mr. Weimer informed Detective Dupre that the stolen vehicle was equipped with a GPS tracking system. Detective Dupre used the tracking system to locate the vehicle at 321 Turtle Creek Road in St. Rose, Louisiana. After obtaining confirmation of the vehicle's whereabouts from the St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office, Detective Dupre and Lieutenant Wilton Leon (also with the TPSO) went to the location and found the vehicle parked in the driveway of a residence.

While at the residence, Detective Dupre questioned potential witnesses, including Brenda Thomas, who indicated that her friend Bruce Chappelle (the defendant) told her to go pick up his vehicle from a Valero gas station in Hammond and bring it to the residence in St. Rose.¹ After Ms. Thomas went to the defendant's house to get the keys, her daughter gave her a ride to the gas station in Hammond, where she was able to locate the vehicle. She then drove the vehicle to her brother's residence in St. Rose, as requested by the defendant. Detective Dupre obtained still photographs taken from video surveillance footage from June 13, 2017, that showed a subject who fit the body build and description of the defendant at the Valero gas station with the vehicle at issue. Detective Dupre subsequently interviewed the defendant at the sheriff's office. After being advised of his Miranda² rights, the defendant confessed to taking the vehicle and leaving it at the gas station where it was retrieved by Ms. Thomas.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In his sole assignment of error, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause to excuse Kathleen Luke, a prospective juror on panel one of the jury venire. The defendant notes that Ms. Luke is the wife of an assistant district attorney working in the same office as the prosecuting attorney in the instant case. The defendant further contends that Ms. Luke also had a "friendship" with Geri LeBlanc of Geri Lynn Nissan. The defendant argues that it is unrealistic to conclude that Ms. Luke's relationships with her husband and Geri LeBlanc would not affect her during deliberations. The defendant notes that Ms. Luke indicated that she would "like to say" that her mind would not be swayed butdid not outright deny that she would be swayed by her husband's position. Finally, the defendant contends that Ms. Luke may have been reluctant to admit to the trial court judge, who was her next-door neighbor,³ that she could not be fair and impartial in his courtroom. The defendant concludes that Ms. Luke's responses as a whole during voir dire revealed facts for which bias, prejudice, or inability to render judgment according to the law can be reasonably implied.

An accused in a criminal case is constitutionally entitled to a full and complete voir dire examination and to the exercise of peremptory challenges. La. Const. art. I, § 17(A); La. Code Crim. P. art. 786. The purpose of voir dire examination is to determine prospective jurors' qualifications by testing their competency and impartiality and discovering bases for intelligent exercise of cause and peremptory challenges. State v. Mills, 2013-0573 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/27/14), 153 So.3d 481, 486, writs denied, 2014-2027 (La. 5/22/15), 170 So.3d 982 & 2014-2269 (La. 9/18/15), 178 So.3d 139. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 797(2) provides that a prospective juror may be challenged for cause on the ground that the juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of his partiality. Further, the State or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that the relationship, whether by blood, marriage, employment, friendship, or enmity, between the juror and the defendant, the person injured by the offense, the district attorney, or defense counsel, is such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict. La. Code Crim. P. art. 797(3). When addressing whether a challenge for cause should be granted, the district court judge must look at the juror's responses during his or her entire testimony, not just isolated answers. State v. Sparks, 88-0017 (La. 5/11/11), 68 So.3d 435, 461, cert. denied, 566 U.S. 908, 132S.Ct. 1794, 182 L.Ed.2d 621 (2012); State v. Conklin, 2018-0718 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/28/19), 274 So.3d 675, 684, writ denied, 2019-00665 (La. 10/8/19), 280 So.3d 591.

When a juror expresses a predisposition as to the outcome of a trial, a challenge for cause should be granted. However, if after further inquiry or instruction, the prospective juror exhibits the ability and willingness to make an impartial decision based on the law and evidence presented at trial, the challenge is properly denied. See State v. Mischler, 2018-1352 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/31/19), ___ So.3d ___, 2019 WL 2334219, at *14. A challenge for cause should be granted, even when a prospective juror declares his ability to remain impartial, if the juror's responses as a whole reveal facts from which bias, prejudice, or inability to render judgment according to law may be reasonably implied. State v. Bowie, 2017-1762 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/1/18), 2018 WL 2453480, at *6, writ denied, 2018-1099 (La. 1/8/19), 260 So.3d 1214. When a defendant is forced to utilize a peremptory challenge to correct an error in denying a challenge for cause and thereafter exercises all available peremptory challenges on other prospective jurors, a substantial right of the defendant, guaranteed by the Louisiana constitution, is affected. State v. Mickelson, 2012-2539 (La. 9/3/14), 149 So.3d 178, 184-85. In such cases, a defendant need make only two showings to establish error warranting reversal of a conviction and sentence: (1) the district court erred in refusing to sustain a challenge for cause by the defendant; and (2) the defendant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges. Id. at 185.

Prejudice is presumed when a challenge for cause is denied erroneously by a trial court and the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges. Bowie, 2018 WL 2453480, at *6. However, a trial court is afforded broad discretion in determining whether to strike a juror for cause because of the trial court's ability to form a first-person impression of prospective jurors during voir dire. State v. Brown,2005-1676 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/5/06), 935 So.2d 211, 214, writ denied, 2006-1586 (La. 1/8/07), 948 So.2d 121. The trial court has the benefit of seeing the facial expressions and hearing the vocal intonations of the members of the jury venire as they respond to questioning, whereas the reviewing court reviews the matter only on a transcript in a record. State v. Dorsey, 2010-0216 (La. 9/7/11), 74 So.3d 603, 627, cert. denied, 566 U.S. 930, 132 S.Ct. 1859, 182 L.Ed.2d 658 (2012). Therefore, the trial court's rulings will not be disturbed unless a review of the voir dire as a whole indicates an abuse of that discretion. State v. Folse, 2018-0153 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/21/18), 258 So.3d 188, 197, writ denied, 2018-1743 (La. 4/22/19), 268 So.3d 300.

In this case, the defendant exhausted all six of his peremptory challenges and used one of them to remove Ms. Luke.⁴ Therefore, we need only determine whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in denying the defendant's challenge for cause of Ms. Luke. At the outset, we note that as the defendant did not assert Ms. Luke's association with Geri LeBlanc as a basis for his challenge for cause below, he is precluded from making such an assertion on appeal. The nature of an objection to a ruling refusing to sustain a challenge for cause and grounds therefor shall be stated at the time of objection. La. Code Crim. P. arts. 800(A) & 841(A). Further, a new basis for an objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. La. Code Crim. P. art. 841; State v. Cheramie, 2008-0703 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/12/08), 2008 WL 4190665, at *2, writ denied, 2008-2547 (La. 8/12/09), 17 So.3d 375.

Moreover, Ms. Luke did not use the term...