observing that “when the entirety of the evidence, both admissible and inadmissible, is sufficient to support the conviction, the accused is not entitled to an acquittal”
How later courts described this case
- observing that “when the entirety of the evidence, both admissible and inadmissible, is sufficient to support the conviction, the accused is not entitled to an acquittal”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN * NO. 2019-CA-0842
THE INTEREST OF L.R.
* COURT OF APPEAL
* FOURTH CIRCUIT
* STATE OF LOUISIANA
*
*
*******
LEDET, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS
Contrary to the majority, I would find that the evidence is sufficient to
support the juvenile court’s adjudication as to both simple burglary and illegal
possession of stolen things. Officer Berrinccha testified at the adjudication hearing
that, within approximately five minutes of the burglary, L.R. was apprehended in
the vicinity and that L.R. had the victim’s cell phone in his possession. This
testimony is direct evidence that L.R. was in illegal possession of stolen property
and is, thus, sufficient to support his adjudication for that delinquent act. Officer
Berrinccha’s testimony also is circumstantial evidence from which the juvenile
court reasonably inferred that, minutes before, L.R. was concerned in the
commission of the burglary during which the victim’s cell phone was stolen. The
majority’s conclusion to the contrary is grounded in two legal errors.
First, the majority finds that, because the State failed to prove Officer
Berrinccha’s “first-hand knowledge that L.R. possessed [the victim’s] cell phone,”
the evidence is insufficient to support L.R. adjudication for illegal possession of
stolen things. This argument conflates sufficiency with admissibility.
Officer Berrinccha testified in relevant part as follows:
[I]t was the task force unit[,] the general assignment officers[,]
that made the apprehension a few blocks away, we canvassed the
route from the house to where the apprehension was made. Several
items were kind of just throw in the bushes, the street, and then [L.R.]
was also in possession of the cellphone.
On cross-examination, Officer Berrinccha testified that he had not himself seen
L.R. in possession of the victim’s cell phone. Thus, the clear import of his
testimony was that he had learned, through statements made by the arresting
officers, that L.R. was apprehended in possession of the victim’s cell phone. That
such testimony may have constituted inadmissible hearsay has no bearing on
whether it is sufficient to support L.R.’s adjudications. See McDaniel v. Brown,
558 U.S. 120, 131, 130 S.Ct. 665, 672, 175 L.Ed.2d 582 (2010) (per curiam)
(observing that “‘a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence admitted by
the trial court,’ regardless whether that evidence was admitted erroneously”)
(quoting Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 41, 109 S.Ct. 285, 291, 102 L.Ed.2d 265
(1988)); accord State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731, 734 (La. 1992) (observing that
“when the entirety of the evidence, both admissible and inadmissible, is sufficient
to support the conviction, the accused is not entitled to an acquittal”).
Second, the majority finds that, because the State offered no direct evidence
that L.R. had entered the victim’s vehicle, the evidence is insufficient to support
his adjudication for simple burglary. It is well settled, however, that, when, as here,
two or more individuals are concerned in the commission of a burglary, each is
liable as a principal, even if he does not himself enter the burglarized structure. See
La. R.S. 14:24 (providing that “[a]ll persons concerned in the commission of a
crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act
constituting the offense, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly
counsel or procure another to commit the crime, are principals”); State v. Brown,
12-0853, pp. 5-6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/6/13), 109 So.3d 966, 970 (observing that “it is
well established that one may be a principal to a burglary without having
personally entered the burglarized structure”) (citing State v. Arceneaux, 07-0692,
p. 11 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/25/08), 983 So.2d 148, 154).
From Officer Berrinccha’s testimony that L.R. was apprehended in the
vicinity of the burglary, approximately five minutes after its commission, and in
possession of the victim’s cell phone (which had been in her burglarized vehicle),
the juvenile court reasonably inferred—to the exclusion of every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence—that L.R. had been concerned in the commission of the
burglary. That inference is sufficient to support L.R.’s adjudication for simple
burglary.