State v. Goudy

1

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. BRANDON GOUDY

No. 2023 KA 0991

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

April 19, 2024

Appealed from the 17th Judicial District Court Parish of Lafourche, State of Louisiana No. 592932 The Honorable F Hugh Larose, Judge Presiding

Kristine Russell

District Attorney

Joseph S. Soignet

Shaun George

Assistant District Attorneys

Thibodaux, Louisiana

Attorneys for Appellee,

The State of Louisiana

Gwendolyn K. Brown

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Attorney for Appellant,

Brandon Goudy

Brandon Goudy

Angola, Louisiana Appellant,

In Proper Person

BEFORE: WELCH, WOLFE, AND STROMBERG, JJ.

WOLFE J.

The defendant, Brandon Goudy, was charged by grand jury indictment with one count of second-degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(1), and pled not guilty. Following a trial, the jury unanimously found the defendant guilty as charged. The trial court denied the defendant's motions for new trial and postverdict judgment of acquittal, and sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The defendant now appeals. We affirm the conviction and sentence.

FACTS

On the evening of September 15, 2019, Tedrick Johnson and his family members, Einajara Clark and Renata Hawkins, were talking outside of Clark's home on Ledet Street in Thibodaux, Louisiana. A black vehicle drove slowly down the street and stopped in front of the home, then the driver fired several gunshots out of the window before speeding off. Neither Clark nor Hawkins were struck by the gunfire, but Tedrick suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the heart. After witnesses identified the defendant as the shooter, he was arrested for Tedrick's murder.^[1]

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In three combined assignments of error,^[2] the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.^[3]

A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand, as it violates due process. See U.S. Const, amend. XIV; La. Const, art. I, § 2. The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the entirety of the evidence, both admissible and inadmissible, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Alexander, 2022-01205 (La. 5/5/23), 362 So.3d 356, 357-58; see also La. Code Crim. P. art 821(B). When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the reviewing court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded. State v. Jones, 2016-1502 (La. 1/30/18), 318 So.3d 678, 681-82. The question for the reviewing court is not whether the defendant has suggested another possible hypothesis that could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion; rather, the reviewing court evaluates the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and determines whether the alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational trier of fact could not have found proof of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jones, 318 So.3d at 682.

Second-degree murder is defined, in pertinent part, as the killing of a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(1). Specific intent is "that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act." La. R.S. 14:10(1). It may be formed in an instant. State v. Brown, 2016-0998 (La. 1/28/22), 347 So.3d 745, 787, cert-denied, __ U.S. __, 143 S.Ct. 886, 215 L.Ed.2d 404 (2023). Specific intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the offense and the conduct of the defendant; however, circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See La. R.S. 15:438; Brown, 347 So.3d at 787. For example, specific intent to kill may be inferred from a defendant's act of pointing a gun and firing at a person. State v. Reed, 2014-1980 (La. 9/7/16), 200 So.3d 291, 309. cert, denied, 580 U.S. 1166, 137 S.Ct. 787, 197 L.Ed.2d 258 (2017).

On appeal, the defendant concedes that the evidence proved he shot and killed Tedrick. However, he claims his conviction should be overturned because the evidence also proved that he acted in self-defense.

A homicide is justifiable "[w]hen committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger." La. R.S. 14:20(A)(1). When self-defense is asserted as a defense by the defendant, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not perpetrated in self-defense. Reed, 200 So.3d at 309. Thus, the issue in this case is whether a rational factfinder, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not kill the victim in self-defense. See State v. Brown, 2023-0293 (La.App. 1st Cir. 11/28/23), __ So.3d __, 2023 WL 8228182, *2.

At trial, the State presented overwhelming evidence that the defendant herein did not act in self-defense when he shot Tedrick. Clark testified that on the night of September 15, 2019, she was outside with Tedrick and her mother, Hawkins, when a vehicle slowly approached and stopped in front of her house. Without saying anything, the driver suddenly fired a gun at them before speeding off. Clark testified that Tedrick did not shoot a gun, nor did he have a gun in his possession. She further testified that no one else outside the vehicle shot a gun, and there were no other vehicles on the street at that time.

Hawkins testified that she noticed a black truck slowly drive down the street before stopping in front of Clark's home. When the vehicle stopped, Hawkins observed "something shiny" in the driver's window and heard multiple gunshots come from the vehicle before it sped away. Hawkins testified that the driver did not say anything before shooting. She further testified that she did not see Tedrick or anyone else with a gun. She stated that Justin Johnson, Tedrick's cousin, was also there that night, but he was behind the house at the time of the shooting.

Justin testified that earlier on the night of September 15, 2019 (the night of the shooting), he was at the Mobil gas station ("Mobil") on Canal Boulevard, which is near Clark's home on Ledet Street. He denied having an altercation with the defendant at Mobil and stated that when he returned to Ledet Street, he asked Tedrick to go back to Mobil for him. Justin testified that after Tedrick returned from the store, he told Tedrick that he observed a black Chevy Tahoe driving down the street and to "watch yourself." According to Justin, Tedrick replied, "I'm not worried about nobody, I'm going home," and walked past him toward Ledet Street. Justin testified that approximately one and a half minutes later, he heard several gunshots.

Justin stated that Tedrick did not have a gun, nor were there any other vehicles on Ledet Street at the time of the shooting.

Dr. Ellen Connor performed the autopsy on Tedrick and testified that he suffered one gunshot wound to the chest, which pierced his heart and caused his death. During the autopsy, Dr. Connor recovered a metal jacket fragment from Tedrick's body.

Jamal Washington, the defendant's friend, testified that at around 9:00 p.m. on September 15, 2019, the defendant left Washington's home at King's Place Apartments on Martin Luther King Drive.^[4] A short time later, the defendant returned to grab a few things before leaving again. Washington testified that when the defendant returned a second time at around 11:00 p.m., the defendant had his gun and was screaming that "they shot at him." Washington also observed blood on the defendant's hand. According to Washington, the defendant called him between 3:00 and 5:00 a.m. the next morning and instructed him on what to say to the police.

In his interview with police, Washington stated he and the defendant went to Mobil, where Justin confronted the defendant. They then traveled to Ledet Street, and the defendant shot Tedrick. Washington confirmed the defendant was the only person who fired a gun that night. At trial, however, Washington recanted his statement and testified that he did not go to Mobil or Ledet Street with the defendant.

Officers with the Thibodaux Police Department responded to the scene on 1602 Ledet Street after Clark called 911. Officers then interviewed witnesses and developed the defendant as a suspect, after which they traveled to the defendant's place of employment. Upon searching the defendant's vehicle, officers collected two spent shell casings between the hood and windshield, and one spent shell casing from the front passenger side floorboard. Officers did not observe any bullet holes or damage to the defendant's vehicle, except for broken glass on the driver's side rearview mirror. However, the mirror did not have any defects which indicated it was damaged by a bullet.

Officers also obtained a search warrant for Washington's residence, where they recovered the defendant's .40 caliber pistol. Ballistics testing indicated that the three casings recovered from the defendant's vehicle, as well as the jacket fragment from Tedrick's body, were all fired from the defendant's firearm.

...