State v. Coutee

373 So.3d 486

2022-665 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/25/23).

STATE of Louisiana

v.Kayla Jean Giles COUTEE

22-665

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

October 25, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 345-209, HONORABLE GREG BEARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

Jane Hogan, Attorney at Law, 310 North Cherry Street, Hammond, LA 70403, (985) 542-7730, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Kayla Jean Giles Coutee

Honorable Jeff Landry, Louisiana Attorney General, J. Taylor Gray, M. Joseph LeBeau, Brooke Harris, Assistant Attorneys General, PO Box 94005, Baton Rouge, La 70804, (225) 326-6200, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Van H. Kyzar, and Sharon Darville Wilson, Judges.

GREMILLION, Judge.

₁Defendant, Kayla Jean Giles Coutee, appeals her conviction for second degree murder and obstruction of justice, violations of La.R.S. 14:30.1 and La.R.S. 14:130.1, respectively, and her sentences of life at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence and thirty years at hard labor, which were ordered to be served consecutively. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE ¹

Defendant and Thomas Coutee were married in 2014. They had one child. Their marriage, however, would not be characterized as harmonious. In 2018, Defendant and Thomas separated.

This separation was not amicable, to say the least. Thomas reported Defendant to law enforcement authorities that Defendant slapped him during a custody exchange. Defendant complained to her friend, Jennifer Dennis, that Thomas slammed a car door on her leg during an exchange. In retaliation, Defendant slapped Thomas. At an August 2018 custody hearing, Defendant indicated that Thomas had jumped at her during an earlier incident.

Mrs. Dennis related that in early 2018, Defendant told her she wanted to kill Thomas and asked if she could borrow a gun. Mrs. Dennis refused to loan Defendant one of her guns. Later, ₂Defendant sent Mrs. Dennis a picture of a black handgun she had purchased. Defendant also asked Mrs. Dennis if she knew anything about self-defense insurance, In August 2018, Defendant sent a message indicating that she had deleted all her social media accounts and that she might "make the news."

Later the same month, the Ninth Judicial District Court issued mutual protective orders that, among other things, prohibited them from possessing firearms pursuant to 18 USC § 922(g)(8). Also in August, Defendant began researching, Louisiana self-defense law and concealed carry insurance over the internet, both on her computer and on her mobile phone. And on August 27, 2018—contrary to the court’s protective order—Defendant purchased a Ruger LCP handgun chambered in .380 ACP from an Academy Sports and Outdoors location in Dallas, Texas. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Form 4473 obtained by Academy, which is required for all commercial firearms transfers or purchases, indicates that Defendant was not subject to a criminal background check because she held a valid Texas concealed carry permit. Defendant also purchased concealed carry insurance from the U.S. Concealed Carry Association on the same day.

During a custody hearing in August 2018, Defendant accused Thomas of bringing a gun to a custody exchange. During Defendant’s trial, Jessica Giles Austin, Defendant’s sister, confirmed this accusation.

₃In the meantime, Thomas filed a pleading seeking a new trial on the district court’s custody order, along with a demand for reimbursement of money and an order for contempt. This pleading was served on Defendant on September 7, 2018.

On September 8, 2018, Defendant and Thomas met in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Alexandria, Louisiana, to exchange physical custody of their child. Defendant’s children from a previous relationship were going to accompany Thomas on this occasion, as they were going to Chuck E. Cheese’s to celebrate the child’s birthday. After the children were in his truck, Thomas approached Defendant’s vehicle and opened her driver’s-side door. Defendant shot Thomas in the chest, killing him. While Defendant described Thomas jumping toward her car and jerking the door open, Defendant’s daughter, A.S., stated that Thomas walked toward the car, which contradicted a recorded statement she had given the police earlier.

Surveillance video obtained from a nearby Sonic restaurant depicted the incident, although the video was taken from afar, and the picture is not of the highest clarity. Defendant was seen closing the rear driver’s side door and proceeding to the driver’s door. Thomas can be seen walking toward the driver’s door. He opened the door. Thomas stepped in a way that he was obscured from the camera by the door. He then stumbled back and fell to the ground.

₄Defendant remained on the scene after the shooting, called 911, and identified herself to responding officers as the shooter, She was promptly arrested and gave a recorded statement to the police in which she claimed that she shot the victim because she was scared of him.

Approximately two weeks before the incident, Defendant had entrusted her laptop computer to her sister, which Defendant delivered in a flowered bag. Defendant made calls from the jail. Among them was a call to Mrs. Austin, during which Mrs. Austin asked Defendant if someone could take "the flowered thing" from her. Defendant told Mrs. Austin that no one was searching for it and that "it doesn’t exist." Mrs. Austin told Defendant she was worried about herself, and Defendant told her, "Give it to Jennifer. Give it to Jennifer."

Mrs. Austin gave the laptop to Mrs. Dennis, who lived in Ouachita Parish. Neither Mrs. Austin nor Mrs. Dennis were asked to damage the computer or delete files from it. The police became aware of the existence of the laptop during their investigation. Detective Curtis Gunter of the Rapides Parish Sheriff’s Office obtained the laptop, from which he retrieved a self-defense insurance contract dated September 1, 2018; research on self-defense law dated September 4, 2018; a "Notice of Intent to Relocate with Child," created on September 4, 2018; and a message in August 2018, from Defendant stating that she might make the news and might need a fundraiser for bail money. ₅This message also stated that Defendant had deleted all of her social media accounts.

Mrs. Austin testified that Thomas had been violent in the past and that Defendant was fearful in the weeks leading up to the shooting. She had, however, never witnessed these incidents, though Defendant told her about them. For comparison, it was noted that Thomas was 6’1" tall and weighed 215 pounds and had fought in about a half-dozen mixed martial arts matches. By contrast, Defendant was 5’2" tall and weighed 114 pounds.

The matter proceeded to trial by jury, after which Defendant was found guilty of second degree murder and obstruction of justice. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence for second degree murder and. thirty years at hard labor for obstruction of justice. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Defendant asserts the following as errors of the trial court warranting reversal:

1) The trial court erroneously denied Kayla Giles’ motion to strike potential jurors Wilfred Loewer and Brandon Headrick for cause.

2) Kayla Giles received ineffective assistance of counsel due to her trial counsel’s refusal to move for a change of venue and failure to consult an expert in intimate partner violence.

3) The trial court erred by failing to grant a hearing on Kayla Giles’ motion for new trial.

₆4)The evidence is insufficient to convict Kayla Giles of second-degree murder or obstruction of justice.

5) The trial court improperly included the aggressor doctrine in the jury instructions.

6) Defendant’s thirty-year sentence for obstruction of justice is constitutionally excessive.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Assignment of error 4:

[1, 2] When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction, that issue must be resolved first. State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must determine "whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Kennerson, 96-1518, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/97), 695 So.2d 1367, 1371. We are not allowed to usurp the trier of fact’s credibility assessments. Id.

[3–5] Defendant was convicted of second degree murder, a violation of La.R.S. 14: 30.1. The elements of second degree murder are 1) the killing of a human being and 2) when the offender has specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. Defendant does not deny killing Thomas; rather, she has maintained from the beginning that his killing was justified pursuant to La.R.S. 14:20(A)(4)(a):

A. A homicide is justifiable:

₇….

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

Subsection (B) creates a presumption that:

a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a, reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or

...