State v. Williams

1

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TREMAINE WILLIAMS

No. 2022-KA-0710

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit

March 8, 2023

APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 551-181 SECTION “DIVISION D” Kimya M. Holmes, Judge

JASON R. WILLIAMS District Attorney Parish of Orleans BRAD SCOTT Assistant District Attorney Chief of Appeals COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA/APPELLEE

Sherry Watters LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

Court composed of Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Rosemary Ledet Judge Paula A. Brown

Rosemary Ledet, Judge

This is a criminal case. The appellant, Tremaine Williams, appeals his convictions of aggravated battery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and his sentences on each conviction. For the following reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from a fight between Mr. Williams and Freddie Scott. During the fight, Mr. Williams shot Mr. Scott in the leg. Mr. Scott survived and the State charged Mr. Williams with attempted second degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Mr. Williams pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial by jury. Before trial, the State filed a motion to invoke the firearm sentencing provision, La. C.Cr.P. art. 893.1, et seq.^[1] The district court granted the State's motion.

Mr Williams filed several motions in advance of trial, including a motion in limine to exclude evidence and testimony under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and motions in limine to exclude certain hearsay evidence. Mr. Williams argued that audio recordings of 911 calls and surveillance video from a Regional Transit Authority ("RTA") bus were inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause. The district court denied Mr. Williams' motions in limine.

During opening statements at trial, defense counsel did not deny that Mr. Williams shot Mr. Scott; rather, counsel asserted that Mr. Scott initiated a fight with Mr. Williams and drew a gun. Defense counsel claimed Mr. Williams was forced to wrest away Mr. Scott's gun and fire at him in self-defense.

The State's key fact witness-Jamarious Scott-disputed Mr. Williams' self-defense claim. Jamarious Scott is a cousin of Freddie Scott. He was familiar with Mr. Williams because Mr. Williams was dating Freddie Scott's sister, Latoya Scott. On the day of the shooting, Jamarious Scott was in his car parked outside of the family home shared by Freddie and Latoya Scott, as well as Kim Scott, their mother, and Latisha Scott, their other sister. Jamarious Scott was making a phone call in his car when he heard a commotion from inside the house. He then saw Mr. Williams and Freddie Scott exit the house in the midst of a fight. Jamarious Scott witnessed Freddie Scott strike Mr. Williams, causing Mr. Williams to stumble before drawing a gun and shooting at Freddie Scott. After the first gunshot, Freddie Scott immediately fled across the street toward an AutoZone parking lot and Mr. Williams followed, firing two more shots. After the second gunshot, Jamarious Scott noticed Freddie Scott limping as he continued to flee and deduced that he had been hit by the second shot. Jamarious Scott heard a third and final gunshot as Mr. Williams followed Freddie Scott across the street.

Jamarious Scott testified that he followed the two across the street to the AutoZone parking lot but had to wait for a bus to pass. After the bus passed and as he approached the parking lot, Jamarious Scott witnessed Freddie Scott lying on the ground as Mr. Williams stood over him, pointing the gun at Freddie Scott.

Latisha Scott was already in the parking lot standing between the two, screaming at Mr. Williams not to shoot her brother. Mr. Williams then returned to the Scotts' house and fled in a car with Latoya Scott. Jamarious administered first aid to Freddie Scott and remained at the scene until law enforcement arrived. During police questioning, Jamarious Scott identified a photograph of Mr. Williams as the perpetrator of the shooting.

The State called Detective Shonndell Fields, who investigated the shooting. Detective Fields arrived at the scene shortly after the shooting, while Freddie Scott was still lying on the ground bleeding from the gunshot wound to his leg. She remained on the scene interviewing witnesses and supervising officers collecting evidence. During further investigation, Detective Fields recovered video footage from the RTA bus that had passed the Scotts' home during the shooting. The video depicted one man holding a firearm and chasing another man across the street in front of the bus. Detective Fields testified that the two men were Mr. Williams and Freddie Scott and they were running from the Scotts' house across the street to the AutoZone parking lot. Detective Fields also testified that, during her investigation, she conducted photographic identifications with Jamarious, Kim, and Freddie Scott. All three identified Mr. Williams as Freddie Scott's shooter.

The State also called New Orleans Police Sergeant Mark McCourt, whose job duties included acting as the custodian of records for the police department. Sergeant McCourt authenticated audio recordings of three 911 calls placed immediately after the shooting requesting police and medical assistance. These recordings were played for the jury.

The jury found Mr. Williams guilty of aggravated battery with a firearm, a responsive verdict to the attempted second degree murder charge, and made the factual finding, pursuant to the firearm enhancement sentence, that Mr. Williams used a firearm in commission of the aggravated battery. The jury also found Mr. Williams guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced Mr. Williams to ten years for the aggravated battery conviction and fifteen years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence for the felon in possession of a firearm conviction, with both sentences to run concurrently.

DISCUSSION

Mr Williams assigns two errors to the district court: first, he argues that the district court made several evidentiary errors throughout the trial; second, he argues that his sentences are excessive.^[2]

I. Evidentiary Issues

Mr. Williams contends that admission of certain evidence during trial violated the Louisiana Code of Evidence and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

Mr. Williams argues that the audio recordings of 911 calls reporting the shooting contained inadmissible hearsay.^[3] The bulk of the 911 calls-placed immediately after the shooting-consisted of statements pertinent to addressing and resolving the ongoing emergency, including the location of the shooting, the nature of the injuries, the number of persons involved, and whether the shooter was still in the vicinity. Mr. Williams takes no issue with those portions of the 911 calls but argues that statements describing the shooter's race, clothing, and vehicle, and statements recounting limited facts about the shooting, are inadmissible hearsay.^[4] The State responds that Mr. Williams failed to lodge a contemporaneous objection to admission of the 911 calls at trial and thus waived his right to raise it on appeal. Although we find the issue was preserved,^[5] we find no error in the district court's admission of the 911 calls.

Article 803 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence provides exceptions to the general rule against hearsay, regardless of the declarant's availability. Among these exceptions are excited utterances. An excited utterance is "[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition." La. C.E. art. 803(2). In State v. Jackson, 15-0222 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/16/16), 191 So.3d 63, this court summarized the excited utterance exception as follows:

For the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule to apply, "the event must be sufficiently startling to render the declarant's normal reflective thought process inoperative, and the statement must be a spontaneous reaction to the event and not the result of reflective thought." State v. Bernard, []14-0580, p. 20 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/3/15), 171 So.3d 1063, 1077, citing State v. Henderson, 362 So.2d 1358, 1362 (La. 1978). The most important factor in determining whether a statement was made under the stress of a startling event is the time span between the event and the statement. State v. Dalton, 99-0902, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/29/00), 759 So.2d 180, 183. Courts have also considered whether the statement is self-serving or in response to an inquiry; whether the statement expands beyond a description of events to include past or future facts; and whether the declarant performed tasks requiring reflective thought between the event and the statement. State v. Falkins, []12-1654, p. 17 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/23/14), 146 So.3d 838, 850; State v. White, []00-1740, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/21/01), 802 So.2d 869, 873. The trial court must determine whether the interval between the event and the statement was of sufficient duration to permit a subsidence of emotional upset and the restoration of a reflective thought process. State v. Everett, []11-0714, p. 17 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/13/12), 96 So.3d 605, 620, citing State v. Lee, []01-2082, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/02), 826 So.2d 616, 626.

State v. Jackson, 15-0222, pp. 12-13, 191 So.3d at 70-71.

The statements at issue-made within minutes of the shooting-were each made by a witness in close vicinity of Mr. Williams firing multiple gunshots at Freddie Scott on a public street in broad daylight. By any measure, this event was sufficiently startling to render the witnesses'...