# State of Louisiana v. Robyn B. Little Davis

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · October 23, 2013

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11290432

## Case

- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** October 23, 2013
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11290432

## Opinion text

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-275

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ROBYN B. LITTLE DAVIS

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 34876-09
HONORABLE DAVID A. RITCHIE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Jimmie C. Peters, and John E. Conery,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Conery, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.

Glen D. Vamvoras
Shane Hinch
Vamvoras, Schwartzberg &Hinch
1111 Ryan St.
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 433-1621
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Robyn B. Little Davis
John Foster DeRosier
District Attorney
Carla Sue Sigler
Karen C. McLellan
Assistant District Attorneys
Fourteenth Judicial District
P. O. Box 3206
Lake Charles, LA 70602-3206
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana
SAUNDERS, Judge.

On December 10, 2009, the Defendants, Robyn B. Little Davis (Defendant-

Davis) and Carol Noland Saltzman (Defendant-Saltzman) were charged by grand

jury indictment with the first degree murder of Defendant-Davis‟ husband, William

Brian Davis. 1 On May 3, 2011, the indictment was amended to charge both

Defendants with second degree murder. Both Defendants entered a plea of not

guilty on November 7, 2011. The case was called for trial on November 7, 2011,

at which time jury selection began and continued until a jury was selected on

November 10, 2011. Before the conclusion of jury selection, the testimony of one

of the State‟s witnesses, Roxanne Baumgartner, was perpetuated. The day after

jury selection was completed, November 11, 2011, the State requested a

continuance because of the physical health of the prosecutor in the case, Rick

Bryant. Over the objections of defense counsel for both Defendants, the trial court

granted the continuance. The trial court also refused defense counsels‟ request to

swear in the jury.

On November 15, 2011, the Defendants filed a “Motion to Quash

Prosecution and for the Dismissal of the Indictment with Prejudice.”

Subsequently, on January 6, 2012; January 18, 2012; and January 24, 2012, the

trial court heard testimony and argument regarding the motion to quash and

dismissal. Both Defendants argued that double jeopardy attached when the State

perpetuated the testimony of Roxanne Baumgartner before the trial court granted

the State‟s continuance based on Mr. Bryant‟s health. The trial court denied the

motion to quash based on double jeopardy. The Defendants also argued that the

charges against them should be dismissed because of the prejudice they suffered by

1
This opinion addresses Defendant-Davis‟s appeal (13-275). Defendant-Saltzman has
filed a separate appeal. (13-276).
the granting of the continuance. The trial court denied the motion to quash and

dismiss the charges on the prejudice grounds as well. On March 28, 2012, this

court denied a writ application filed by both Defendants. State v. Davis and

Saltzman, 12-236 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/28/12) (unpublished opinion). This court

instructed the trial court “to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible,

with the original jury, if such can be accomplished without resulting prejudice [sic]

to any party.” Id. If the trial could not proceed with the original jury, this court

instructed the trial court to call a new jury panel. Id. Thereafter, on April 18,

2012, the supreme court denied a writ application filed by the Defendants. State v.

Davis and Saltzman, 12-834 (La. 4/18/12), 85 So.3d 1255.

Attempting to comply with this court‟s instructions, the trial court recalled

the original jurors on April 23, 2012. Because several jurors had to be excused for

cause, the trial court released the original jury and a new jury was selected. Both

Defendants were tried before the same jury in a thirteen-day jury trial. At the close

of the evidence, the defense moved to strike the responsive verdicts of

manslaughter and negligent homicide. By an 11-1 vote, the jury found both

Defendants guilty of second degree murder. The trial court subsequently denied

motions for new trial and for post-verdict judgment of acquittal filed by the

Defendants. Finally, on August 24, 2012, the trial court sentenced both

Defendants to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole,

or suspension of sentence.

On August 24, 2012, Defendant-Davis‟ attorney filed a timely motion for

appeal. Pursuant to that motion, Defendant-Davis is presently before this court,

alleging nine assignments of error.

FACTS:

2
On July 1, 2009, a dead body was discovered lying next to a Honda Accord

off of Big Lake Road in Calcasieu Parish. When deputies responded to the scene,

the car‟s trunk and doors were open, and the car looked like it had been jacked up

to change a tire. Deputies discovered that the vehicle was registered to Defendant-

Davis and that Defendant-Davis had reported her husband missing. William Brian

Davis‟ driver‟s license was also found in the vehicle. According to the autopsy

report and death certificate, the body was identified as William Brian Davis by

dental records and the presence of tattoos on his body.

Dr. Terry Welke, the coroner for Calcasieu Parish, estimated William Brian

Davis‟ time of death to be sometime after 12:00 p.m. on June 29, 2009. He died of

four gunshot wounds, one to the head and three to the torso. Dr. Welke ruled the

manner of death as a homicide.

ERRORS PATENT:

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed by

this court for errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record,

we find no errors patent.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER SIX:

We will address this assignment first, as it attacks the sufficiency of the

evidence. A finding of insufficiency would require reversal of the conviction and,

thus, obviate the need for discussion of the other eight assignments of error. See

State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La.1992).

This court has stated the following regarding the standard for reviewing a

claim of insufficient evidence:

The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is
“whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a
reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime
charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 108,
3
170, cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1221, 127 S.Ct. 1279, 167 L.Ed.2d 100
(2007) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61
L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678
(La.1984)). The Jackson standard of review is now legislatively
embodied in La.Code Crim.P. art. 821. It does not allow the appellate
court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the
fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d
517, 521 (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), 680 So.2d
1165; State v. Lubrano, 563 So.2d 847, 850 (La.1990)). The appellate
court‟s function is not to assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh
the evidence. State v. Smith, 94-3116 (La.10/16/95), 661 So.2d 442.

The factfinder‟s role is to weigh the credibility of witnesses.
State v. Ryan, 07-504 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/07), 969 So.2d 1268. Thus,
other than ensuring the sufficiency evaluation standard of Jackson,
“the appellate court should not second-guess the credibility
determination of the trier of fact,” but rather, it should defer to the
rational credibility and evidentiary determinations of the jury. Id. at
1270 (quoting State v. Lambert, 97-64, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir.
9/30/98), 720 So.2d 724, 726–27). Our supreme court has stated:

However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact
finder‟s discretion and its role in determining the
credibility of witnesses “only to the extent necessary to
guarantee the fundamental due process of law.” State v.
Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1310 (La.1988). In determining
the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction,
an appellate court must preserve “ „the factfinder‟s role
as weigher of the evidence‟ by reviewing „all of the
evidence . . . in the light most favorable to the
prosecution.‟” McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. [120,]
[134], 130 S.Ct. 665, 674, 175 L.Ed.2d 582 (quoting
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781,
2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). When so viewed by an
appellate court, the relevant question is whether, on the
evidence presented at trial, “any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99
S.Ct. at 2789. Applied in cases relying on circumstantial
evidence, . . . this fundamental principle of review means
that when a jury “reasonably rejects the hypothesis of
innocence presented by the defendant[ ], that hypothesis
falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another
hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.” State v.
Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 680 (La.1984).

State v. Strother, 09-2357, pp. 10-11 (La.10/22/10), 49 So.3d
372, 378 (alteration in original).

4
State v. Francis, 12-1221, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/3/13), 111 So.3d 529, 533

(alteration in original).

Defendant-Davis argues that the State‟s case against her was a very weak

circumstantial evidence case, devoid of any evidence that she was present during

the commission of the murder, directly committed the murder, aided or abetted in

the murder, or directly or indirectly procured another to commit the murder. She

alleges that the “evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State,

merely showed that Robyn Davis‟ cell phone may have been within the

geographical area, constituting numerous square miles, at times she says she was

not.” There was absolutely no proof, Defendant-Davis argues, that she shot the

victim or was present at the time of his death. Additionally, Defendant-Davis

alleges that the State failed to exclude every reasonably hypothesis of her

innocence: 1) that she was with Defendant-Saltzman running errands in Lake

Charles at the time of the murder; and 2) that the victim was killed by someone

else, possibly his mistress‟ husband, Shane Dietz.

Preliminary Investigation

Detective Brent Young testified that he was present when Defendant-Davis

was notified of her husband‟s death. Once told of her husband‟s death, Defendant-

Davis was dry-heaving and/or vomiting. Defendant-Davis was cooperative with

the detectives and told them that on the day he disappeared, the victim was

supposed to be going boat shopping in Beaumont. Defendant-Davis also told

Detective Young that the victim was “ratholing” approximately $700.00 for a new

boat. When asked if the victim kept money in his sock, Defendant-Davis said he

did from time to time because of the nature of his job, collecting insurance

premiums.

5
David Guzzardo, district manager for Union National Life Insurance

Company in Lafayette, testified that the victim was an agent of the insurance

company. Mr. Guzzardo explained that the agents generally collect the premiums

by physically going to the homes of the policy holders, some of whom live in low-

income neighborhoods. The premiums are usually paid in cash, check, or money

orders.

On July 2, 2009, the day after the victim‟s body was discovered, Detective

Les Blanchard spoke with Defendant-Davis in order to gather background

information and establish a timeline of the victim‟s whereabouts on the day of his

murder. Defendant-Davis told Detective Blanchard that the victim left for work

early that morning. According to Defendant-Davis, the victim drove her

Trailblazer to work because the victim‟s Honda Accord was having wheel trouble.

The victim wanted to go boat shopping, so he came home early from work –

around 11:00 a.m. The victim and Defendant-Davis went boat shopping in Lake

Charles and then went to Jerry‟s Marine in Sulphur. They arrived back at home

around 2:00 or 3:00 that afternoon. At that time, the victim took his Honda Accord

and headed to Beaumont to continue boat shopping. Aimee Davis, the victim‟s

sister-in-law, spoke with a boat dealership in Beaumont that remembered the

victim calling to say he was heading that way, but the victim never made it.

Defendant-Davis testified that when the victim headed to Beaumont in his Honda

Accord, she took her Trailblazer to go run errands – the cleaners, the grocery store

and an oil change.

Defendant-Davis told Detective Blanchard that the victim had two life

insurance policies – one for $90,000.00 and one for $40,000.00. Defendant-Davis

also told Detective Blanchard that she learned in March of 2009, that the victim

6
was having an affair with Fannie Dietz, a coworker of the victim. When she found

out about the affair, Defendant-Davis confronted Ms. Dietz.

Several days later, on July 9, 2009, Detectives Blanchard and Young

received permission from Defendant-Davis to search her residence and Trailblazer.

With the help of Defendant-Davis‟ son, Justin Little, the detectives collected a box

of ammunition belonging to the victim. The box of ammunition contained some 9-

millimeter Hydra-Shok rounds.2

Defendant-Davis gave a formal statement to the detectives on July 9 th. In

this statement, Defendant-Davis repeated much of what she had already told

Detective Blanchard on July 2nd. Defendant-Davis also told the detectives that

she spoke to the victim once after she and the victim went their separate ways on

the day of the murder. Then, when she attempted to call the victim again, the call

went straight to voicemail. When the victim did not come home, Defendant-Davis

called the police to see about reporting him missing and was told that she must

wait twenty-four hours from the time she expected him home. The next morning,

Defendant-Davis called the victim‟s work and learned that no one there had heard

from him. David Guzzardo verified that Defendant-Davis called him that Tuesday

morning to see if he had seen the victim. Defendant-Davis called the police that

night, and a policeman came to Defendant-Davis‟ home. Mark Chatman, an

officer with the Lake Charles Police Department, confirmed that he received a call

from Defendant-Davis about a missing person and went to Defendant-Davis‟ home

Tuesday around 4:30 p.m. Defendant-Davis told Officer Chatman that the victim

was supposed to be heading to Beaumont in his Honda.

2
Douglas Lancon, the State‟s expert in firearms and tool mark identification and ballistics,
defined “hydroshock” as a “patented proprietary bullet design by Federal.”

7
In her July 9th statement, Defendant-Davis told detectives that before she and

the victim left to go boat shopping on June 29 th, the victim went to Kroger to get

his sick daughter (Bailey) some soup. Catherine Davis, the victim‟s sister, testified

that Defendant-Davis told her that the victim never returned from Kroger. In her

statement to detectives, however, Defendant-Davis explained that she and the

victim went boat shopping after he returned from Kroger and later split ways.

When they split ways, Defendant-Davis picked up Defendant-Saltzman to go run

errands. As for the victim‟s mistress, Defendant-Davis told Detective Young that

the mistress‟ husband, Shane, had threatened to beat the victim‟s “a_ _” and get

him fired. Mr. Guzzardo, the district manager for Union National Life, testified

that the victim told him that his mistress‟ husband, Shane Dietz, might try to have

him fired.

As for their financial situation, Defendant-Davis stated that her account was

overdrawn by almost $800.00, that her house note had not been paid since March,

and that they had no car insurance. Defendant-Davis also stated that she thought

the victim gambled more than she was aware. Julius Oaties with Union National

Life Insurance testified that both Defendant-Davis and Defendant-Saltzman

worked for Union National at one time. Defendant-Saltzman was terminated in

March of 2009, and Defendant-Davis was terminated one week later. Despite their

financial situation, Darrell Pettifer of Jerry‟s Marine testified that on the day of his

murder, the victim was looking at a $30,000.00 boat. The victim told Mr. Pettifer

that he planned to pay for the boat with a settlement or lump sum of cash that he

was getting in the near future.

After Defendant-Davis‟ July 9th statement and before her July 13th statement,

Detective Young became concerned with information he learned from Defendant-

Davis‟ cell phone records. A call made by Defendant-Davis at 3:50 p.m. “pinged”
8
off of a tower on Elliot Road in Lake Charles. According to Detective Young, the

tower is south of the area in which Defendant-Davis claimed to have been running

errands.3

In her next statement to police on July 13, 2009, Defendant-Davis repeated

much of the same information given in her previous statements but added

information about Defendant-Saltzman‟s use of the victim‟s Honda Accord.

Defendant-Davis explained that the victim‟s Honda Accord was not at the house

the morning of the murder because Defendant-Saltzman drove it home the night

before when her car would not start because she left her lights on. On the morning

of the murder, while the victim was at work, Defendant-Davis jumped Defendant-

Saltzman‟s car off so that Defendant-Davis could drive to the drugstore.

According to Detective Young, Defendant-Davis said she called Defendant-

Saltzman to tell her the Jetta was “good” and that she could come pick it up.

According to Defendant-Davis, Defendant-Saltzman picked up the Jetta and left

the Accord at their house while Defendant-Davis and the victim were boat

shopping. Defendant-Davis reiterated that that she and the victim split ways

between 2:30 and 3:00 the afternoon of the murder. Defendant-Davis talked to the

victim about 3:00 while driving to Defendant-Saltzman‟s house. Defendant-Davis

had to wait for Defendant-Saltzman to get ready. The two then went to the

cleaners, Albertson‟s, and back to the Davis residence.

When told by Detective Young that her cell phone was being used in the

area of the victim‟s murder, Defendant-Davis stated that she was not there. In fact,

she stated that she had never been in the area where the murder occurred until after

3
Detective Young did not testify that this call was made on the day of the murder. It is
clear from his testimony as a whole, however, that it was made that day.
9
the victim‟s body had been found. Defendant-Davis had no explanation for her

cell phone being used in the area of the victim‟s murder.

Defendant-Saltzman also gave a statement to detectives on July 13, 2009.

Defendant-Saltzman stated that she was at the Davis home all afternoon on the day

before the murder, which was a Sunday. When Defendant-Saltzman started to

leave around midnight, her car would not start. Defendant-Davis told Defendant-

Saltzman to take the victim‟s Honda Accord since the victim would be driving

Defendant-Davis‟ Trailblazer to work the next morning. The next morning,

Monday, Defendant-Davis called Defendant-Saltzman to tell her that the victim

would be needing the Honda Accord. Defendant-Saltzman put $5.00 to $10.00

worth of gas in the car and drove it to the Davis residence. According to Detective

Blanchard, a video from Shop Rite showed Defendant-Saltzman at the store shortly

after 11:00 p.m. According to Defendant-Saltzman, she drove the Honda Accord

to the Davis residence, and Defendant-Davis then drove Defendant-Saltzman back

home.4 Defendant-Saltzman claimed that she stayed home until Defendant-Davis

picked her up to run errands later that afternoon. Defendant-Saltzman was not

ready when Defendant-Davis arrived, so they did not leave to run errands until an

hour later. When the two left Defendant-Saltzman‟s house, they went straight to

the dry cleaners and then to Albertsons. At first, Defendant-Saltzman stated that

Defendant-Davis drove while running errands but later remembered that she

(Defendant-Saltzman) drove. The two women completed the errands and arrived

at the Davis residence around 5:00 or 5:30 p.m.

When the victim was still missing on Tuesday, Defendant-Saltzman drove

around looking for him. Because the victim had previously taken them fishing at

4
We note that Defendant-Saltzman‟s statement about when she returned the Honda
Accord is inconsistent with Defendant-Davis‟s statement that Defendant-Saltzman returned the
Honda Accord sometime while Defendant-Davis and the victim were boat shopping.
10
Calcasieu Point, Defendant-Saltzman drove to Calcasieu Point to look for the

victim. When asked what she thought about the fact that Calcasieu Point was close

to the murder scene, Defendant-Saltzman replied that she never thought about that.

According to Detective Blanchard, the victim‟s body was found less than a mile

from Calcasieu Point Landing.

In a separate interview conducted on that same date (July 13, 2009),

Defendant-Saltzman stated that she had previously lived with the Davises for three

years. Defendant-Saltzman told Detective Blanchard that she had no knowledge of

the victim‟s death. When Detective Blanchard explained to Defendant-Saltzman

the difference between first and second degree murder, Defendant-Saltzman asked

if he thought she killed the victim. Detective Blanchard told Defendant-Saltzman

that he thought she had either direct or indirect knowledge of the victim‟s murder.

Defendant-Saltzman stated that she did not know what happened and asked to

leave the interview. At that point, the interview was concluded.

Stephanie Wells, a good friend who was living with the Davises at the time

of the murder, testified that she had eye surgery the day the victim disappeared.

Ms. Wells testified that she remembered seeing Defendant-Saltzman‟s car parked

in the grass when she left for surgery. When Ms. Wells returned home from her

surgery around 10:30 a.m., she did not recall seeing Defendant-Saltzman‟s car at

the Davis residence. Defendant-Davis was at home when Ms. Wells returned

home, and the victim arrived a few minutes later. The victim asked Ms. Wells if

she would watch his daughter, Bailey, while he and Defendant-Davis went boat

shopping. Although Ms. Wells never saw the victim again, Defendant-Davis

returned home around 5:00 p.m. Ms. Wells called the victim between 3:00 and

3:30 p.m., but the phone call went to voicemail. At 3:42 p.m., Ms. Wells sent the

victim a text message stating that Bailey was not feeling well. Detective Young
11
testified that the victim‟s cell phone records indicate Ms. Wells tried to call him at

3:42 p.m., and the phone call went straight to voicemail. The voicemail was

followed by a text message stating that Bailey was ill. Although Ms. Wells did not

receive a call back from the victim, she did receive a call from Defendant-Davis.

According to Detective Young, Defendant-Davis called Ms. Wells at 3:50 p.m..

Ms. Wells assumed the victim and Defendant-Davis were still together. Ms. Wells

thinks Defendant-Davis told her she was going to run errands. She acknowledged

that in her previous statement to police she said that Defendant-Davis told her she

was going to pick up Defendant-Saltzman to run some errands. Ms. Wells also

acknowledged that Defendant-Davis made this call to her around 3:50 p.m..

Defendant-Davis and Defendant-Saltzman arrived home from running errands

around 5:00 or 5:30 p.m.. According to Ms. Wells, Defendant-Davis was very

distraught and crying when the officers notified her of the victim‟s death.

As for the cars at the Davis residence, Ms. Wells testified that when she left

that morning for her eye surgery, Defendant-Saltzman‟s Jetta was parked off to the

side of the driveway on the grass. Ms. Wells did not believe the victim‟s Honda

was there when she left. When Ms. Wells returned, however, she believed

Defendant-Saltzman‟s Jetta was gone and the victim‟s Honda was there. Ms.

Wells also testified that after she went inside, she does not know what vehicles

were picked up or dropped off.

Kelsey Little, Defendant-Davis‟ daughter, arrived at the Davis residence

around 7:30 the morning of the victim‟s murder. Kelsey was with her boyfriend

and went to sleep until approximately 2:00 p.m.. Kelsey left with her boyfriend

and did not arrive back at home until around 9:00 that night. According to Kelsey,

Defendant-Davis told her that the victim never came home from work, and no one

12
could get in touch with him. When the police notified Defendant-Davis of the

victim‟s death, Defendant-Davis was crying and throwing up.

Babette Bartholomew, Defendant-Davis‟ mother, testified that she deposited

$4,000.00 into Defendant-Davis‟ account around the time of the victim‟s

disappearance. Defendant-Davis told Ms. Bartholomew that she was instructed by

police not to use the account since the victim was missing. Ms. Bartholomew

stated that she did not know the victim was deceased when Defendant-Davis asked

her for the money. When asked if she ever told the police that Defendant-Davis

told her the account was frozen because of the death investigation, Ms.

Bartholomew stated that if she did, it was because the victim was already dead at

the time she was being interviewed. In her statement to police, Ms. Bartholomew

stated:

I deposited $4,000 into a new account for my daughter, Robyn Davis,
around the time of the funeral. I don‟t exactly remember when, but it
was after he had died. Robyn said she couldn‟t use her account or
they, detectives, wouldn‟t let her use the account because they wanted
to watch the activity of Robyn‟s deceased husband‟s credit card or
account as part of the investigation. I don‟t remember if Robyn told
me that the account was frozen, I just assumed that, but I think I told
them she said it was frozen.

At trial, Ms. Bartholomew testified that she deposited the money into Defendant-

Davis‟ account before the victim died.

Detective Young testified that Ms. Bartholomew told him and Detective

Blanchard that she deposited the money into Defendant-Davis‟ account because

Defendant-Davis said the police froze the account due to the victim‟s death

investigation. At first, this statement did not concern Detective Young. The

detective became concerned, however, when he reviewed the financial records and

learned that Ms. Bartholomew‟s deposit was made on July 1, 2009, the same date

the victim‟s body was found.

13
Fannie Dietz confirmed that she and the victim had had an affair for about

one and a half years. The affair ended in March 2009, when Defendant-Davis

confronted her about the affair. According to Mrs. Dietz, her husband, Shane, also

confronted the victim about the affair. Shane confirmed that he confronted the

victim about the affair but denied ever threatening the victim. Mrs. Dietz was

questioned by police on July 7th and took the officers to a spot at which she had

previously met the victim. Detective Brent Young described the spot as being “off

of Henry Pugh Boulevard, which runs off of Big Lake Road near Calcasieu Point

landing.” According to Detective Blanchard, the victim‟s body was found less

than a mile from Calcasieu Point Landing.

Detective Young testified that Mrs. Dietz‟s cell phone records showed that

she was in the Iota and Crowley area on June 29th. Detective Young also testified

that Shane Dietz‟s phone records showed that he was not in the Lake Charles area

on June 29th. However, Detective Young admitted that there was a gap of several

hours between phone calls for both Mr. and Mrs. Dietz. Shane Dietz‟ records

showed that he made a phone call at 2:50 p.m. and then received no other calls or

texts until he received a text at 10:54 p.m. Likewise, the phone records for Mrs.

Dietz show no activity between 9:28 a.m. and 4:56 p.m. According to Detective

Blanchard‟s testimony at trial, Detective Young also spoke with Shane‟s boss, who

verified that Shane was at work on the day of the victim‟s disappearance.

Murder Scene

Matt Vezinot, one of the deputies that responded to the murder scene,

testified that the victim‟s vehicle appeared to have been having tire trouble. The

lug nuts were taken off of one of the tires, and the car‟s spare tire was on the

ground. In order to protect the tire from further damage during the towing process,

Deputy Vezinot replaced the seemingly damaged tire with the spare. The tire was
14
taken to Southern Tire Mart to be examined for defects. Billy Carnahan, Southern

Tire Mart‟s store manager, testified that he found no defects in the tire. Mr.

Carnahan also testified that if a flat tire was driven over the terrain he saw in a

photograph shown to him by the State, the tire would have been damaged. On

cross-examination, Mr. Carnahan acknowledged that although it does not happen

often, new tires will leak if they are not sealed well around the rim. Mr. Carnahan

also agreed that there are situations in which a tire can go flat even if there is no

damage to the outer part of the tire.

Lynn Miller, with the Southwest Louisiana Crime Lab, was asked to

examine fingerprints lifted from the crime scene in the present case. The

fingerprints were lifted from the carjack, the windows of the victim‟s Honda

Accord, an iPOD found in the car, the spare tire rim, and the mirror on the sun

visor of the Accord. The only fingerprint that Ms. Miller was able to identify was

Defendant-Davis‟ fingerprint on the mirror of the sun visor.

LeAnne Suchanek, also with the Southwest Louisiana Crime Lab, performed

a DNA analysis on items recovered from the crime scene. According to Ms.

Suchanek, the victim‟s body was too decomposed to yield a blood sample. Ms.

Suchanek explained that the only way to obtain a “known [DNA] profile” from

someone is to obtain a sample directly from the person‟s fluid or cellular material.

Ms. Suchanek concluded that DNA found on the victim‟s belt, on the victim‟s

fingernails, a bottle cap found at the scene, and the victim‟s driver‟s license

belonged to an unidentified male. In Ms. Suchanek‟s opinion, the unidentified

male was most likely the victim. Ms. Suchanek reached this opinion by examining

the victim‟s left and right fingernails, from which she obtained a single DNA

profile. Because the fingernails are an “intimate sample” taken from the victim,

Ms. Suchanek expected the victim‟s DNA to be present. Ms. Suchanek compared
15
the DNA found on the victim‟s belt buckle, beer bottle cap and driver‟s license

with the profile obtained from the victim‟s fingernails and concluded that they

were consistent. Finally, Ms. Suchanek testified that she discovered no female

DNA on the items recovered from the scene.

Testimony Regarding Victim’s Gun and Weapon Used to Kill Victim

Jody Baiamonte, an agent with Union National Life Insurance, testified that

he knew the victim very well and knew that the victim carried a firearm in his car.

Another agent, Robert Konrady, introduced the victim to a shooting club when the

victim bought a Springfield automatic pistol and wanted to learn how to shoot

better. Mr. Konrady testified that the victim was proficient in firearms and carried

a gun in his vehicle. Justin Little, Defendant-Davis‟ son, testified that the victim

always kept a Springfield XD 9-millimeter handgun either on his person or in his

car.

Douglas Lancon, accepted as an expert in firearms and tool mark

identification and ballistics, examined two projectiles found in the victim‟s body.

According to Mr. Lancon, these two projectiles were fired from the same gun and

were characteristic of “Federal‟s hydroschock design.” On cross-examination, Mr.

Lancon acknowledged that there are at least eleven manufacturers that could have

made the gun that fired these bullets, one of which was Springfield.

Crime Scene Reconstruction Expert

Mr. George Schiro testified for the State as an expert in crime scene

reconstruction. After reviewing photographs of the crime scene, Mr. Schiro opined

that because the victim‟s Honda Accord was not muddy, the vehicle had to have

arrived at the scene before it rained on the day of the murder. The meteorology

reports from the Lake Charles Airport indicate that the rain began around 3:45 p.m.

on the day of the murder and lasted until about 7:00 that night.
16
Mr. Schiro also noticed that there was a live round located near the victim‟s

vehicle. This fact, Mr. Schiro opined, may indicate that the person firing the

weapon was not familiar with that particular firearm:

[I]f someone . . . is not familiar with a particular firearm, they may - -
if they‟re not familiar with all the safety functions, they may pull the
trigger to try and click and nothing happens and then they‟ll rack one
out and maybe at the time, you know, figure out how some of the
safety mechanisms that may be involved

Mr. Schiro further opined that the shooter may have been standing and the victim

bending over when the shooter shot the victim in the back. The victim then turned

around and was possibly shot again, with the final blow being a shot to his head.

Additionally, Mr. Schiro testified regarding his opinion as to whether the

victim was shot with his own gun. In reaching his opinion, Mr. Schiro looked at

the information concerning the brand of the live round found at the scene and

information concerning the weapon owned by the victim. After looking at this

information, Mr. Schiro opined the following:

The evidence at the scene supports a probability that he may have
been shot with his own gun. Given that there‟s a particular type of
ammunition called Hydra-Shoks and, you know, the shootings that I
have investigated, you rarely ever see Hydra-Shoks, with the
exception of law enforcement personnel and shooting enthusiasts.

I saw photographs of that same type of ammunition at Mr.
Davis‟ house, so I just think that lends more support, and given the
fact that the bullets recovered from his body were Hydra-Shoks and
the cartridge casings found at the scene were Federal just lends more
support to that he may have been shot with his own gun.

On cross-examination, Mr. Schiro acknowledged that he would need to

examine the victim‟s firearm to determine if it was the actual gun that shot the

bullets found at the scene. Mr. Schiro agreed that his opinion is limited to the fact

that it was probably the victim‟s gun based on the fact “there were Hydra-Shok

rounds - - he had Hydra-Shok rounds found in his possession[.]” Finally, on re-

direct, Mr. Schiro testified, “Relatively speaking, among shootings, you very rarely
17
see Hydra-Shok ammunition, again, unless it‟s usually a shooting enthusiast

involved or law enforcement.”

Finally, Mr. Schiro rendered an opinion as to whether the crime scene was

staged:

Well, I believe that the whole tire incident was staged, because
all the documentation that I examined show that that tire was fairly
recently purchased. There were no defects in it. As far as I know, it
held its - - its charge of air once it was charged. There appeared to be
no defects on it. So, to me, that part of the scene was staged and that
someone had to deflate that tire, and I don‟t know if it was staged for
the benefit of the investigators who come out there, you know, and
make it look like he was changing a flat tire, or if it may have been for
Mr. Davis‟ benefit to make him think that there was a flat tire
associated with this vehicle.

The other thing is, in addition to that, Mr. Davis had a
compressor in the trunk of his car. And I don‟t know whether or not
that compressor was functioning or not, but if the tire was truly flat,
instead of changing the tire, you know, perhaps could have used the
compressor. So, just the whole thing with the functionality of the tire
indicated to me that that portion of the scene was staged.

On cross-examination, Mr. Schiro acknowledged that crime scene

contamination can thwart the investigation of a case. The jury had previously

heard the testimony of Deputy Roxanne Baumgarten, a registered medical-legal

death investigator with the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff‟s Department, regarding

possible contamination of the crime scene in this case. Deputy Baumgarten

acknowledged that because there were photographs showing the Honda Accord‟s

trunk open and photographs showing the Honda Accord‟s trunk closed, someone

did not follow the proper protocol, i.e., no touching of the evidence until all

photographs and video are taken. Deputy Baumgarten further expressed concern

with the fact that Deputy Vezinot took the allegedly defective tire and put it in the

trunk of the vehicle. The problem, Deputy Baumgarten recognized, is that

anything on the outside of the trunk could have been transferred to the inside of the

18
trunk. Mr. Schiro agreed that putting the tire in the trunk without individually

protecting it was improper.

On cross, Mr. Schiro recognized that the victim‟s body was found in a

secluded area and that the victim‟s belt was unbuckled and his shoes and a sock

were off. Mr. Schiro admitted that the victim could have been getting undressed

when he was killed. When asked, however, if his opinion would have been

affected by testimony that the victim liked to go to remote areas to have sex with

his mistress, Mr. Schiro replied, “No, it wouldn‟t have affected my opinions, based

on what I‟ve, you know, laid out here today.”

Further Investigation – Walgreens Video

Based on the fact that Defendant-Davis stated that she went to the drugstore

on the morning of the victim‟s disappearance (June 29 th), Detective Young

obtained a video from Walgreens Drugstore for June 29th. The video was

introduced into evidence and played for the jury. The video shows that at 8:52 on

the morning of June 29, 2009, both Defendant-Davis and Defendant-Saltzman

entered the store. According to Detective Young, Defendant-Saltzman never

mentioned going to the drugstore with Defendant-Davis.

Cell Phone Records

Detective Young testified as to discrepancies he discovered when looking at

Defendant-Davis‟ cell phone records. Although Defendant-Davis told detectives

that she called the victim once after they split up, Detective Young testified that

Defendant-Davis‟ phone records showed that from 3:00 p.m. on, Defendant-Davis‟

first call to the victim was at 5:58 p.m. Detective Young also testified about the

phone call from Defendant-Davis to Ms. Wells at 3:50 p.m. on the afternoon of the

victim‟s disappearance. In her statement, Defendant-Davis told the detective that

when she made the 3:50 call, she was waiting on Defendant-Saltzman to dry her
19
hair so that they could go run errands. According to the cell phone records, this

call “pinged” off of a Sprint tower located at 7279 Elliot Road. The use of this

tower concerned Detective Young, because the tower is south of Country Club

Road, when the Defendants claimed they only went to Albertson‟s and AAA

Cleaners. That same tower was used in a two-second phone call made from the

victim‟s phone at 3:44 p.m. p.m. on the 29th. At the beginning of Defendant-

Davis‟ 3:50 p.m. call, the southwest sector of the tower (sector 4), was the portion

of the tower being used. During the call, however, the sector being used switched

to sector 3 of the same tower, indicating that Defendant-Davis was mobile. In her

statement, Defendant-Davis stated that she did not go anywhere that afternoon

besides Albertson‟s and AAA cleaners. A surveillance video from AAA Cleaners

verified that both Defendant-Davis and Defendant-Saltzman were at AAA

Cleaners at 4:40 p.m..

Detective Young also testified regarding Defendant-Davis‟ claim that she

left lots of voicemails for the victim. According to Detective Young, Defendant-

Davis said she called the victim‟s voicemail “bunches” of times. However, when

the victim‟s voicemail was played for the jury, there were no messages from

Defendant-Davis from June 29, 2009, at 2:58 p.m., until July 4, 2009, at 9:20 a.m.

As for Defendant-Saltzman, Detective Young testified that she told him that

she was home in the afternoon of June 29th, until she went with Defendant-Davis to

run errands. Defendant-Saltzman‟s cell phone records, however, indicated that a

phone call made by Defendant-Saltzman to Defendant-Davis at 1:38 p.m. “pinged”

off of Centennial Tower 940 located at 316 Ben Wright Road in Hackberry,

Louisiana. According to Detective Young, Hackberry is located south of Sulphur.

Detective Young previously testified that there is a Centennial tower located on

Irvin Jensen Lane that is approximately 100 yards from Defendant-Saltzman‟s
20
residence, which is located in Lake Charles. At 2:41 p.m., Defendant-Davis called

Defendant-Saltzman, and Defendant-Saltzman‟s cell phone “pinged” off a

Centennial tower located by the airport in south Lake Charles. Then, at 2:49 p.m.,

Defendant-Saltzman called Defendant-Davis, and Defendant-Saltzman‟s phone

“pinged” off of a Centennial tower in Sweetlake, Louisiana. Finally, Defendant-

Saltzman received a call at 3:01 p.m. that initially “pinged” off of the tower near

the airport and ended at Irvin Jensen tower near Defendant-Saltzman‟s residence.

Detective Young testified that the final call was from Troy Fletcher to Defendant-

Saltzman.

In addition to the Defendants‟ cell phone activity on the 29th, Detective

Young testified as to the Defendants‟ cell phone activity on Sunday the 28 th.

According to Detective Young, both Defendants told him that they were at the

Davis home sitting by the pool and grilling. However, at 5:00 p.m. on the 28 th,

Defendant-Davis called Defendant-Saltzman, and Defendant-Saltzman‟s phone

“pinged” off of the Centennial tower located in Hackberry, the preferential tower

for a call made from the murder scene. At 6:26 p.m. on that same date, Defendant-

Davis called Defendant-Saltzman, and Defendant-Davis‟ phone “pinged” off of a

cell tower located at 2381 Augustus Street in Sulphur, Louisiana. According to

Detective Young, the Augustus Street tower is located near Jerry‟s Marine, the

same location at which the victim and Defendant-Davis were seen boat shopping

the following day. At 7:31 p.m. on that same date, the victim called Defendant-

Davis, and the victim‟s phone “pinged” off of a tower located on Canal Street near

his home. Defendant-Davis, however, “pinged” off of the tower located at 7279

Elliott Road, which is the same tower off of which her 3:50 p.m. call to Ms. Wells

“pinged” the following day (June 29th).

Expert Testimony Regarding Cell Phone and Cell Phone Towers
21
Special Agent William Shute of the Federal Bureau of Investigations was

introduced by the State as an expert in historical cell site analysis. Agent Shute

examined the call detail records of the Defendants and victim, as well as the cell

towers themselves, to make sure the towers were in the same condition they were

in at the time of the crime. Agent Shute took an engineering cell phone to the

tower locations to see if the phone would reselect to that particular cell tower.

Agent Shute explained that when a phone is in idle mode, it is constantly “stacking

and racking” – meaning “[i]t‟s taking all the various cell sites that the phone can

see and has stacked and racked at the top the one it sees with the clearest signal,

the best quality of signal.” Agent Shute prepared a power-point presentation to

demonstrate the cell towers used as well as the range of the towers. When asked

how accurately the circles drawn on his demonstration depict the radio frequency

of the towers, Agent Shute responded:

Well, a cellular signal doesn‟t have a perfect ending, a perfect
circular sort of ending. It looks more like an ameba, if you were to
really draw it by using additional equipment. But what this represents
is it‟s the furthest possible distance that the phone was most likely at
during that time, by doing testing east and west of the tower, and
when the phone that I used to test with would drop the Centennial
Wireless signal from that tower.

Again, when your phone is stacking and racking, it puts that
cell site to the top of the list so that if it‟s about to make a phone call
or receive a phone call, that‟s the cell site that the call gets originated
on, the call gets set up on. Outside of that area, the call was not - - or
the phone was not reselecting to that cell site. That‟s why we draw it
like this. It‟s an approximation, and actually it‟s to actually be fair to
the person who actually has the phone, because you have to show, you
know, all the possible areas the phone could have been.

In reality, Agent Shute testified, the outside areas could be further away or closer

to the cell site. Additionally, Agent Shute explained:

And, again, is that the exact depiction? No. But it‟s - - if it‟s
different, it‟s not that much different than that. Because, again, my
phone that I use to test with, this shows where the phone no longer

22
had that signal. And so outside of that area it‟s very unlikely the
phone to reselect to [Tower] 2610.

....

So, you know, in reality the signal probably goes, you know, further
and further and further. But the phone would not reselect to it because
the phone cannot see it . . . [a]s a clear quality signal.

Using his demonstration to explain his testimony, Agent Shute testified that

on June 28th, the day before the murder, Defendant-Davis called Defendant-

Saltzman at 5:00 p.m. Defendant-Davis‟ phone utilized cell tower 3278, which is

the tower near the Davis residence in Lake Charles and the preferential cell site at

the residence. During that same call, Defendant-Saltzman‟s phone utilized

Centennial Wireless Cell Site 940 located off of Ben Wright Road in Hackberry,

which is located south of Sulphur and is the preferential cell tower for a call made

from the murder scene. At 6:26 p.m. on June 28 th, Defendant-Davis called

Defendant-Saltzman, and Defendant-Davis‟ phone utilized Sprint Tower 3015, the

tower near Jerry‟s Marine, where the victim and Defendant-Davis were seen boat

shopping the following day. During that same call, Defendant-Saltzman‟s phone

utilized Centennial Tower 2610, a tower located approximately 370 yards from

Defendant-Saltzman‟s residence. According to Agent Shute, tower 2610 is the

serving tower for Defendant-Saltzman‟s residence. Finally, at 7:31 p.m. on June

28th, Defendant-Davis made a phone call that used cell tower 3045, a tower that

covers an area as close as ½ mile from the murder scene.

The following day, June 29th, Defendant-Davis called Defendant-Saltzman

just after midnight. Defendant-Davis appeared to be in the vicinity of her

residence because her phone utilized cell tower 3278, while Defendant-Saltzman

appeared to be at her residence because her phone utilized tower 2610. Relying on

the video surveillance at Walgreens, Agent Shute testified that later that morning,

23
both Defendant-Davis and Defendant-Saltzman were together at Walgreens. At

about the same time the Defendants were at Walgreens, Defendant-Davis received

a phone call, and her phone utilized tower 3278, the same tower used at her

residence. According to Agent Shute, Walgreens is in the same coverage area for

tower 3278. Notable to Agent Shute was the fact that Defendant-Davis‟ presence

at Walgreens was also supported by the cell site information.

At 11:18 a.m., Defendant-Saltzman is recorded on video at the Shop Rite on

Country Club Road in Lake Charles. Defendant-Davis called Defendant-Saltzman

at 11:25 a.m., and Defendant-Saltzman‟s phone utilized tower 2610, the tower near

Defendant-Saltzman‟s home in Lake Charles. Later, at 1:38 p.m., Defendant-

Saltzman called Defendant-Davis, and Defendant-Saltzman‟s phone used tower

940, the tower located in Hackberry, Louisiana, and the preferential tower for a

call made from the murder scene. This is the same tower, according to Agent

Shute, that Defendant-Saltzman‟s phone used the previous day. Agent Shute

testified that the tower is 300 feet high and actually covers as far out as eight miles.

According to Agent Shute, a cell phone used on the access road of the murder

scene would utilize this same tower. During the 1:38 p.m. call, Defendant-Davis

utilized tower 2273, a tower near Lake Area Marine in Lake Charles, one of the

places at which the victim and Defendant-Davis boat-shopped on June 29th.

Approximately one hour later at 2:41 p.m., Defendant-Davis called

Defendant-Saltzman. At that time, Defendant-Davis utilized tower 3015, which is

the serving cell site for Jerry‟s Marine in Sulphur. At that time, Defendant-

Saltzman had moved from tower 940 in Hackberry to tower 2470 by the Lake

Charles airport. For the next thirty minutes (from 2:41 p.m. to 3:08 p.m.),

Defendant-Davis had five phone calls, all of which used tower 3015, the serving

site for Jerry‟s Marine. Three of the phone calls were with Defendant-Saltzman.
24
One of the calls (the call at 2:53 p.m.) was with the victim. During this call, both

Defendant-Davis and the victim used the same cell tower, 3015. Both Defendant-

Davis and the victim were recorded leaving Jerry‟s Marine at 2:55 p.m. The last

call, during which Defendant-Davis‟ phone used cell tower 3015, was made at 3:08

p.m.

The next call from Defendant-Davis‟ phone is a 3:50 p.m. call. During this

call, Defendant-Davis‟ phone originated at Sprint tower 4045 and ended 2 minutes

and 23 seconds later on Sprint tower 3045. According to Agent Shute, neither

tower 4045 nor tower 3045 can be utilized at the murder scene. However, the

towers can be used “a half a mile up the road” from the murder scene. Notable to

Agent Shute was the fact that Defendant-Davis‟ phone could have been as close as

one-half mile from the crime scene or as far away as five miles. Agent Shute also

testified that because the 3:50 p.m. phone call originated on one cell tower and

ended on another, Defendant-Davis was mobile during that phone call.

Agent Shute used mapping software and a drive test to find the most direct

route from Jerry‟s Marine to the areas covered by towers 3045 and 4045, the

towers used by Defendant-Davis during her 3:50 call. The mapping program and

drive testing showed a distance of twenty-one miles and an approximate travel

time of twenty-eight minutes. Thus, Agent Shute opined that it was possible for

Defendant-Davis and the victim to arrive at the murder scene by 3:36 p.m.

Defendant-Davis‟ phone calls after the 3:50 p.m. call show that she moved a little

to the east and then a little to the southeast and then back to the vicinity of her

residence. At 4:39 p.m., Defendant-Davis made a phone call that used Sprint

tower 2280. Both AAA Cleaners and Albertson‟s are in the coverage area for that

tower. Finally, at 9:36 p.m. on June 29, 2009, Defendant-Davis made a call and

Sprint tower 3278, the serving site for her residence, was used.
25
As for the victim‟s cell phone records, Agent Shute testified that the victim‟s

cell phone was used at 3:01 p.m on the 29th and used tower 3015, the cell site for

Jerry‟s Marine. Then, at 3:44 p.m., the victim‟s phone made an outbound call

lasting only two seconds. The phone used cell tower 3045, the same tower used by

Defendant-Davis in her 3:50 p.m. call. Agent Shute noted that Defendant-Davis‟

cell phone used cell tower 3045 at 7:31 p.m. the day before the murder and at 3:50

p.m. the day of the murder.

On cross-examination, Agent Shute explained that the population of calls on

a network has no bearing on the range of the tower. In other words, if the

population in an area decreases, the range of a tower will not increase. Agent

Shute further explained that although geography could affect the range of a tower,

the weather has minimal effect on the range. Although Agent Shute did not agree

or disagree with defense counsel, defense counsel noted that on June 28 th (the day

before the murder), both the victim and Defendant-Davis were using their cell

phones in the vicinity of Jerry‟s Marine between 6:25 p.m. and 6:29 p.m.

Additionally, when questioned about the use of multiple cell towers during phone

calls that Defendant-Davis made on June 27th within seconds of one another,

Agent Shute opined that Defendant-Davis was either mobile or within an area of

overlap for those towers.

As for the time it took to get from Jerry‟s Marine to the murder scene, Agent

Shute testified that if a person drove the speed limit, it is possible for that person to

reach the crime scene in twenty-eight minutes. If a person drove over the speed

limit, of course, that person could arrive sooner. During the cross-examination of

Agent Shute, the defense offered documentation showing that a pontoon bridge on

the way to the murder scene was opened for barge traffic (and thus closed to road

traffic) between 3:31 and 3:47 p.m. on June 29th. Allyson Bailey, a bridge operator
26
with the Department of Transportation and Development, confirmed that the Black

Bayou Bridge on Big Lake Road was closed to road traffic from 3:31 p.m. until

3:47 p.m. Agent Shute agreed that if this documentation was accurate, no one

could have crossed the bridge between 3:31 p.m. and 3:47 p.m. This fact, Agent

Shute acknowledged, was not factored into his analysis.

On re-direct, the following colloquy took place regarding the effect of the

bridge opening on the travel time to the murder scene from Jerry‟s Marine:

Q: All right, Agent Shute. I‟d like to draw your attention to prior
testimony and this bridge stuff. Now, we didn‟t have that bridge
information, but over the lunch hour I asked you to look at that bridge
information, did I not?

A: Yes, on the map. Sure.

Q: Okay. And there was a call in those call detail records, I believe,
from Robyn Davis‟ phone at 3:08?

A: 3:08, yes.

Q: All right. In what sector was that phone call made?

A: Thirty-fifteen.

Q: And which sector is that? Is that the one by Jerry‟s Marine?

A: Yes.

Q: All right. I want to go back to your fly-over exhibit. Okay.
(Addressing assistant.) Can you go to the one that shows the sector?
All right. Right there. Okay. That‟s 3015, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And that‟s the one that her phone was on at 3:08?

A: That‟s correct.

Q: All right. That covers a wide range of area, does it not?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. So I see I-10 on that - - in that particular sector, correct?

A: Yes.
27
Q: If that phone made a call at 3:08, could it have been on the outside
of the area?

A: You mean towards the outside of the coverage area, out this way?

Q: Oh, yes, sir. That‟s what I mean.

A: Sure.

Q: Like if someone were going down I-10, say to go back to Lake
Charles, it would go all the way back over to where that sector ends,
right, - -

A: Out - -

Q: - - or it could?

A: Out this way, yes.

Q: Yes, sir.

A: Sure.

Q: All right. From 3:08, did - - no, scratch that. Back when you said
30 - - no, 28 minutes?

A: Twenty-eight minutes.

Q: That was timed from where?

A: From right here, from Jerry‟s Marine.

Q: All right. So, there‟s some time in that 28 minutes that it would
have taken to get from Jerry‟s Marine to the outer edge of that sector,
correct?

A: Yeah, using the same mapping software that I utilized when I did
this, I checked. And to get from about Jerry‟s Marine up this road and
out on Interstate 10 to about this approximate geographical area would
take about six minutes.

Q: Okay. So, the six minutes - - if the call would have came in at
3:08, then it could be at the end? It would be at the end or somewhere
in that particular area that you talked of?

A: Well, again, we don‟t know where the phone was, but if the phone
was towards the outskirts of the sector out here on Interstate 10 in this
geographical vicinity, sure.

28
Q: All right. And did you run the mapping software on this area to
see from 30 - - I mean, from that particular area how long would it
take to get to the murder scene?

A: I believe I checked from the - - that location to being able to get
beyond the pontoon bridge.

Q: Okay. And what was that?

A: Twenty-two minutes.

Q: Okay.

A: Going the speed limit.

Q: So if at 3:08 you turned that way and you added 22 minutes, that
gets you there at 3:30?

A: 3:30.

Q: Prior to the time that pontoon bridge opens?

A: It is possible, if going the speed limit, you could have gotten there
before the - - before the bridge opened. Now, if you were going
faster, then you could - - even five minutes, five miles an hour over
the speed limit, you could have gotten there a lot - - a lot sooner than
the bridge opening.

Q: So, having this bridge opening really doesn‟t affect your opinion,
does it?

A: No. It doesn‟t mean anything.

As for the two-second call made from the victim‟s phone at 3:44 p.m., Agent

Shute testified that that call could have been a “pocket dial,” a misdial with a quick

hang-up, a phone call that quickly lost signal, or any number of things. When

asked if the phone could have been thrown into water while it was on, Agent Shute

replied, “If the phone was connected to - - for a signal and then dropped into the

water or thrown into the water, the call signal would terminate immediately.”

Agent Shute testified that he did not believe the victim‟s cell phone was found at

the crime scene. Finally, Agent Shute opined how long it would take for a person

to travel from the murder scene to the AAA Cleaners and Albertson‟s in Lake

29
Charles. Agent Shute opined that the drive time was approximately twenty-three

minutes. Noting that the Defendants were seen at AAA Cleaners at 4:22 p.m.,

Agent Shute testified that there was enough time for the Defendants to make it

from the crime scene to the cleaners if they were traveling at 3:50.

In its case in chief, the defense offered its own communications expert, John

Minor. Mr. Minor opined that Agent Shute‟s report was biased in several areas.

Mr. Minor testified that “cell sites or cellular antennae range from 100-meter

coverage in what‟s called a picocell in a shopping mall to over several thousand

meters.” Coverage on an interstate, Mr. Minor testified, could be up to forty miles.

When asked to explain the difference between live tracking and historical cell site

analysis, Mr. Minor stated that live tracking is highly accurate. According to Mr.

Minor, in live tracking, other location techniques are used. The accuracy of the

location technology used in this case, historical cell sector analysis, was explained

by Mr. Minor as follows:

Well, the accuracy of this technology is based upon the
radiation footprint of the cell site. So, you have a cell site in some
cases that have a capability to communicate at perhaps, as that
Hackberry tower, so-called, at 8, 12 miles perhaps, and maybe on an
interstate highway, a cellular tower may be communicating at 20 or 30
miles.

In town in a suburban or more and more densely urban area, the
cell sites are closer together, and so the radiation footprint becomes
smaller. So, the actual working range of the cell site becomes smaller.
So, this thousand meters plus is just a number. It could be - - it could
actually be lower than that, if it were a piocell - - one of the little cells
inside a shopping mall, for example. It might be accurate within a
hundred yards. But in this case we‟re talking about cell sites that
range from basically about 2 miles - - just thinking about the
arrangement here in town, probably 1 to 2 miles out to 10 to 15 miles
working range and accuracy.

Mr. Minor disagreed with Agent Shute that the cell phone controls which

tower it uses. According to Mr. Minor, the carrier network, not the phone,

determines the cell site to which the phone registers. Mr. Minor explained further:
30
Well, the neighbor cells concept is, I think as Special Agent
Shute described, some stacking and racking. Your cell phone actually
monitors and remonitors every 6 to 12 seconds the visible radio signal
from cell sites in the vicinity around your handset. When you switch
on your handset, it immediately begins to gather information and will
register to the highest quality signal that it can locate that the carrier
network will allow it to.

Although a cell phone typically attempts to seek the strongest or best quality

signal in most instances, there are many factors that will affect how the cell phone

actually registers on the network. Thus, Mr. Minor stated, it is “not always a sure

thing that your handset will register to the nearest cell site or strongest signal.”

Some of the factors that could affect the cell site to which the handset registers are

“heavy traffic loading,” “network operating conditions, cell site maintenance,”

“radio frequency in use,” “antenna array configuration,” “geography and

topographical features,” and “interference factors.” According to Mr. Minor,

Agent Shute did not consider some of these factors in his report. In fact, no

maintenance records were obtained in this case. Thus, there is no indication in

Agent Shute‟s report that he consulted the maintenance records “to know whether

or not the system was the same the day he performed the test as it was whenever

these cell data records he looked at were generated.

Mr. Minor also disagreed with Agent Shute that weather is not a factor that

should be considered. Weather, Mr. Minor testified, affects the “network operating

condition.” For example, cellular networks can experience “rain fade” during

heavy rain storms, causing the signal to fail to propagate through the rain. The

person using the cell phone would not notice, however, because the cell phone will

reselect to another tower. According to Mr. Minor, lightening can also cause

tremendous problems. Finally, Mr. Minor explained what happens when a cell site

experiences problems:

31
[I]f some or many of the cell sites were experiencing outages, either
one sector or an entire site blinking out, the network would expand to
fill the voids, and the working range would extend, and your handset
might actually be in another geolocation.

Mr. Minor also testified that if the population in an area decreases because

of a hurricane, for example, fewer subscribers will be in a geographical area,

resulting in less of a load on that segment of the network. In Mr. Minor‟s opinion,

the working range of the Hackberry tower extended ten to twelve miles rather than

the eight miles estimated by Agent Shute. Mr. Minor testified that it is entirely

possible for someone to be on the outer edge of the twelve mile range and have the

Hackberry tower pick up his cell phone call. Mr. Minor further testified that a shift

change at one of the refineries along Big Lake Road could cause a surge in call

traffic. Such a surge could cause a tower to be used that would normally not be

used. Thus, Mr. Minor stated, just because a phone “pings” off of the tower in

Hackberry does not mean the person is in Hackberry.

The airport tower, Mr. Minor testified, is a little over twelve miles from the

Hackberry tower. The Hackberry tower frequencies, Mr. Minor testified, actually

reach the airport tower. Thus, Mr. Minor opined, someone could be south of the

Country Club Road area in South Lake Charles and still be picked up by the

Hackberry tower depending on certain conditions. Mr. Minor testified that it is

possible that Defendant-Saltzman might have “pinged” off of the Hackberry tower

even though she was far north of where Agent Shute estimated her to be.

Additionally, Mr. Minor testified that when looking at the accurate facts from the

tower areas, a more possible explanation would be that Defendant-Davis was in her

own neighborhood when she made the 3:50 p.m. call. Furthermore, Mr. Minor

testified, Mr. Shute‟s theories were “really . . . mess[ed] up” by the fact that the

32
road was shut down for sixteen minutes by the opening of the pontoon bridge.

Finally, Mr. Minor concluded that this type of analysis is a “very inexact process.”

On cross-examination, Mr. Minor testified that he did not perform any

testing himself. Mr. Minor also testified that he did not know whether a shift

change actually took place at the plants on Big Lake Road. Additionally, Mr.

Minor did not know whether there were any problems with the networks when this

crime occurred nor what type of cell-site maintenance was transpiring. As for his

testimony that Tower 940‟s coverage extends twelve miles, Mr. Minor testified

that he did not go out and test or measure anything. Thus, his testimony is simply

an estimate. Finally, Mr. Minor testified that he has no idea of the population in

Hackberry, Lake Charles, or Sulphur.

Background Information About Victim and Defendants

Justin Little, Defendant-Davis‟ son, knew of the victim‟s affair with Fannie

Dietz because Justin worked with the victim for Union National in Lafayette.

According to Justin, the victim would stop to play video poker on the way to work

in the mornings and sometimes on the way home. The victim‟s video poker

playing, Justin testified, escalated in the six months prior to his death. Justin knew

that his mom, Defendant-Davis, also gambled. John Nelson, an employee of KD‟s

Diner in Lake Charles, recognized Defendant-Davis as being a continual customer

at the video poker machines in the few days preceding July 11, 2009.

Justin also testified that Defendant-Davis was married to Justin‟s dad,

Andrew Little, when Andrew died in a car accident in 2008. Andrew and

Defendant-Davis had been separated since 2000, but Defendant-Davis stayed

legally married to Andrew so that she could continue to carry Andrew on her

medical insurance. According to Justin, Andrew could not work because of a bad

back, and it would have been almost impossible for him to obtain medical
33
insurance. Justin knew that Defendant-Davis carried life insurance on Andrew, but

Justin did not know the value of the policies or what happened to the money from

the policies. Finally, Justin was asked about a recorded conversation he had with

Defendant-Davis while Defendant-Davis was in jail. The recording was later

admitted into evidence and played for the jury. During the conversation,

Defendant-Davis told Justin that there were people in jail with “way higher bonds”

than her that didn‟t even kill anybody. When asked about the context of that

statement, Justin explained:

We talked about me getting a haircut, a few other, you know, small
things, and then I asked her if - - I asked her if anybody had a higher
bond than her and I also asked her jokingly if she was the hardest
criminal in jail, which we can look at her and make that assessment,
and I believe - - you know, it was all in good fun and stuff and we
were joking and she said, well - - I believe she said to the extent that
they got people with higher bonds that didn‟t kill anybody, which we
were just talking about her arrest. We weren‟t talking about, you
know, her actually doing anything or to that extent.

Justin testified that Defendant-Davis jokingly made the statement and was not

confessing to murder. Justin stated that he asked his mother “straight up” if she

had anything to do with the victim‟s murder, and she said “no.”

Defendant-Davis‟ daughter, Kelsey, was asked about her father, Andrew

Little‟s, death. When asked if she ever indicated to police that there was a problem

with the life insurance, Kelsey replied, “The problem? That she was the

beneficiary and she got all the money.” Kelsey also told police that Defendant-

Davis told her that there was only $25,000.00 in life insurance. However, when

her father‟s house was being cleaned, a $100,000.00 policy was found. In her

statement, Kelsey also stated that the situation was “shady” because Defendant-

Davis bought a Trailblazer with cash, bought the victim a boat with cash,

remodeled the house with new hardwood floors, bought new kitchen appliances,

hired a professional painter to paint the entire house, and hired someone to
34
landscape the house. In the statement, Kelsey described her mother as being unfair

to other people. When questioned by defense counsel, Kelsey stated that she did

not know how much life insurance money was paid when her dad died.

As for Defendant-Saltzman, Kelsey described her as a second mom. Kelsey

stated that Defendant-Saltzman lived with them for four years, never paying any

rent or buying groceries. In her statement to police, Kelsey stated that Defendant-

Saltzman did not have any money and did not have to have any money if she hung

out with Defendant-Davis.

Davis’ Financial Records

Detective Young reviewed the Davis‟ financial records. The District

Attorney asked Detective Young to look at withdrawals and expenditures

beginning in February 2009. The records showed overdraft charges, frequent

withdrawals, and withdrawals at gaming establishments. In particular, on July 10,

2009, Defendant-Davis‟ card was used to purchase $102.75 at Casino Gaming. On

July 11, 2009 (ten days after the victim‟s body was found), Defendant-Davis wrote

four checks at K.D‟s Diner - $202.75, $102.75, $102.75, and $62.75.

Life Insurance

When he first spoke with Defendant-Davis, Detective Blanchard learned that

the victim had two life insurance policies – one from Farm Bureau in the amount

of $90,000.00 and one from Union National in the amount of $40,000.00. Later,

however, Detective Blanchard learned from Kay Ashworth, of State Farm

Insurance, that there were two additional polices - one in the amount of

$100,000.00 and one in the amount of $250,000.00. The Farm Bureau policy was

opened on September 30, 2004. Defendant-Davis was listed as a fiancé with a

scheduled wedding date of December 18th. The $250,000.00 State Farm policy

was opened on April 8, 2005, with Defendant-Davis listed as fiancé. Defendant-
35
Davis became the owner of this policy on August 10, 2006. The $100,000.00 State

Farm policy was opened on September 30, 2004, and Defendant-Davis was the

beneficiary, listed as a girlfriend. The Union National Insurance Policy was a

Prudential Policy opened October 29, 2004, in the amount of $50,000.00 with an

additional $150,000.00 accidental. The spouse, Marla, was removed, and

Defendant-Davis was added as a beneficiary, listed as a friend. Detective Young

testified that there were four policies, totaling $645,000.00.

Defense’s Case

In its case in chief, the defense offered the testimony of John Bloxom, a

resident of Calcasieu Parish, who called Crime Stoppers after seeing a news report

that a body was found at the end of Wagon Wheel Road on July 1, 2009. The day

before the news report, Mr. Bloxom saw a red truck backed up by the trees on

Wagon Wheel Road. Mr. Bloxom testified that he saw the truck before noon.

Shane Dietz testified at trial that at the time of the murder, he drove a red F-150

four-door truck. When asked if he noticed anything unusual about the truck he

saw, Mr. Bloxom stated that the doors of the truck were open. Mr. Bloxom also

testified that he had been fishing in that area for twenty years and very seldom saw

vehicles in that area. No one from law enforcement followed up with Mr. Bloxom.

When asked why he did not follow-up on Mr. Bloxom‟s call, Detective Young

testified that the victim‟s phone records indicated he was most likely dead on

Monday.

Mark Fontenot, a friend of both the victim and Defendant-Davis, testified

that he spoke with the victim on the morning of June 29th. Mr. Fontenot thought he

remembered the victim telling him that he and Defendant-Davis were looking at

boats at Henderson Implement in Welsh. Mr. Fontenot believed the call was at

about 10:19 that morning. According to Mr. Fontenot, Defendant-Davis called
36
him that evening, “around 7:00-ish,” to see if he had heard from the victim. Mr.

Fontenot stated that he had not heard from the victim, but he began calling the

victim and leaving voicemails. When he learned that the victim was missing, Mr.

Fontenot thought the victim was either fooling around and did not want to be

disturbed or something bad had happened. On cross-examination by the State, Mr.

Fontenot described the victim as a “neat freak.” Finally, Mr. Fontenot stated that

when he and the victim would fish together, they would mostly launch at Calcasieu

Point on Henry Pugh Boulevard. According to Detective Blanchard, the victim‟s

body was found less than a mile from Calcasieu Point Landing.

State’s Argument

In closing, the State argued that instead of being home the afternoon of June

29th as she claimed, Defendant-Saltzman was driving the victim‟s Honda Accord

and communicating with Defendant-Davis to determine when Defendant-Davis

and the victim would be leaving Jerry‟s Marine. Defendant-Saltzman drove the

victim‟s Honda Accord to Wagon Wheel Road and feigned a flat tire. Rather than

going home and switching cars as Defendant-Davis claimed, the State argued that

Defendant-Davis and the victim drove the Trailblazer straight from Jerry‟s Marine

to Wagon Wheel Road. Although the State does not indicate which Defendant did

the shooting, the State argued that once lured to the murder scene, the victim was

murdered by the Defendants.

The State argued that the jury must either believe that Defendant-Davis and

the victim went home to switch cars as Defendant-Davis claimed, or they must

believe that Defendant-Davis and the victim drove straight to Wagon Wheel Road.

Traveling the direct and less timely route, the State argued, made more sense in

light of the pontoon bridge closing to traffic and in light of the fact that the Honda

Accord had to be parked on Wagon Wheel Road before the heavy rains started.
37
The weather reports indicate that heavy rain occurred between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m.

Because no mud was found underneath the Honda Accord, it had to have been

parked on Wagon Wheel Road before the rain started. Additionally, the State

argued that it would have taken less time for Defendant-Davis and the victim to

travel directly from Jerry‟s Marine to Wagon Wheel Road than it would have taken

them to travel from Jerry‟s Marine to their house, switch cars, and then the victim

travel alone to Wagon Wheel Road. The Defendants‟ cell phone records, the State

argued, also support its theory. The cell phone records not only show that the

Defendants were not where they claimed to be the day before the murder and the

afternoon of the murder, they also placed the Defendants near the murder scene

both the day before the murder and the day of the murder.

As a further connection of Defendant-Davis to the murder scene, the State

argued that the projectiles found at the scene matched the ammunition found at the

Davis residence. This particular type of ammunition is not used that often, but is

common to law enforcement and gun enthusiasts. The State further noted that the

flat tire at the crime scene appeared to be staged.

The State stressed the fact that Defendant-Davis and Defendant-Saltzman

gave inconsistent stories as to how and when the victim‟s Honda Accord was

returned to the Davis residence. Additionally, neither woman told police that they

were together at Walgreens the morning of the murder. Defendant-Davis also lied

to police about leaving the victim numerous voicemails when he did not return

home. Additionally, the State pointed out the fact that Defendant-Davis told the

victim‟s sister that the victim never returned home from his trip to Kroger to buy

Bailey a Sprite. Although not argued by the State, we also note that Kelsey Little,

Defendant-Davis‟ daughter, testified that Defendant-Davis told her that the victim

never returned home from work. These all differ from what Defendant-Davis told
38
police, that the victim never returned when they went their separate ways for him

to continue boat shopping in Beaumont.

To prove motive, the State argued that Defendant-Davis knew the victim had

been having an affair with Fannie Dietz. The State also pointed out the financial

bind Defendant-Davis was in because of her loss of job, overdrawn bank account,

video-poker playing, and late house-note payment. In addition, the State pointed

out, Defendant-Davis lied to police regarding the amount of life insurance carried

by the victim. In brief, the State argues that Defendant-Davis and Defendant-

Saltzman have been nearly inseparable friends for years, that both Defendants were

frequent gamblers, and that Defendant-Saltzman was financially dependent on

Defendant-Davis.

As further indications of the Defendants‟ guilt, the State pointed out that

Defendant-Davis was out playing video poker just days after her husband‟s death

and that Defendant-Davis asked her mother to deposit $4,000.00 into her account

because of the victim‟s death investigation before the victim was even found.

Finally, the State argued that the two Defendants were alibis for one another.

Defense Argument

Defendant-Davis acknowledges that although very close, there appears to

have been enough time for Defendant-Davis and the victim to drive from Sulphur,

clear the pontoon bridge before 3:31 p.m., arrive at the murder scene before 3:36

p.m., and the victim be murdered before 3:45 p.m. However, Defendant-Davis

argues that the State‟s theory does not account for the fact that the victim‟s cell

phone was north of the pontoon bridge at 3:44 p.m. – a period of time when the

bridge was closed to traffic:

It was not possible for the phone to have made its way from the
murder scene after the killing of Brian Davis, and be north of the
pontoon bridge at 3:44 p.m. because the bridge was closed to traffic.
39
If the cell phone analysis is given credibility enough to convict two
people of murder, it should also be considered reliable enough to
show that the State’s timeline was flawed to the exclusion of every
reasonable hypothesis. Simply put, there was not sufficient time for
Brian Davis to have been murdered during the time frame that the
state revealed in its rebuttal argument and still give credence to the
cell tower analysis which places his phone north of the waterway at
3:44 p.m.

However, the State‟s cell phone expert, Agent Shute, did not testify that the

victim‟s cell phone was located north of the pontoon bridge at 3:44 p.m. Agent

Shute testified that the cell tower used by the victim‟s cell phone during the 3:44

p.m. call “sits north of the . . . murder scene.” Even so, Agent Shute was able to

get a signal “just south of the pontoon bridge,” making it possible for the victim‟s

phone to have been “within a half a mile of the murder scene.” According to

Detective Young, Hackberry is located south of Sulphur. Thus, if the victim and

Defendant-Davis were traveling from Jerry‟s Marine (located in Sulphur) to the

murder scene, they were traveling south. Agent Shute agreed that the victim and

Defendant-Davis had to get beyond the pontoon bridge to reach the murder scene.

The murder scene was located south of the pontoon bridge. Consequently, if the

murder scene was located south of the pontoon bridge and Agent Shute was able to

get a signal “just south of the pontoon bridge,” the victim‟s cell phone could have

also been south of the pontoon bridge when the 3:44 p.m. phone call was made.

The Defendants attempt to poke additional holes in the State‟s case by

pointing out that the victim‟s time of death was not precise and could have been

anytime in the afternoon or night of his disappearance, even possibly the morning

after. Dr. Terry Welke, the coroner for Calcasieu Parish, estimated the victim‟s

time of death to be sometime after 12:00 p.m. on June 29, 2009. Additionally, the

Defendants argue that the testimony regarding the start of rainfall was based on

information from the Lake Charles Memorial Airport, a different location than the

40
murder. Thus, the Defendants argue, the rainfall at the murder scene could have

been later.

Defendant-Davis also argues that Shane Dietz, the husband of the victim‟s

mistress, had both the motive and opportunity to kill the victim. Even though

Detective Young testified that Mr. Dietz‟ cell phone records cleared him as a

suspect, the Defendant argues that it was impossible for Mr. Dietz to be cleared by

his cell phone records since there is a large gap between calls on the day the victim

was murdered. Additionally, she argues that the same type of truck driven by Mr.

Dietz was seen near the murder scene the day after the victim was murdered. In

closing argument, both Defendants also argued that when Defendant-Davis left

Jerry‟s Marine, she was dressed in white capri pants and flip flops, attire not

appropriate for going into a muddy cow pasture and killing someone.

Finally, the Defendant raises additional hypotheses of innocence:

Was Brian Davis going to engage in some monetary transaction
that was illegal on the day of his demise? Was he killed in a drug deal
gone bad? Was Brian Davis engaged in sexual conduct when he was
caught by a jealous husband or boyfriend and killed? Did Brian Davis
drive his car to Wagon Wheel Road, leave it parked there, and leave
in another vehicle belonging to someone else?

Sufficiency of the Evidence Analysis

Both Defendants were convicted of second degree murder, which requires

proof that the defendant killed a human being (1) with the specific intent to kill or

inflict great bodily harm or (2) while engaged in the perpetration of an enumerated

offense. La.R.S. 14:30.1. This court has held that pointing a gun at a person and

firing the gun is an indication of intent to kill that person. State v. Thomas, 10-269

(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/6/10), 48 So.3d 1210, writ denied, 10-2527 (La. 4/1/11), 60

So.3d 1248, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 196 (2011). The victim in this

41
case died of four gunshot wounds, one to the head and three to the torso. Thus, the

evidence was sufficient to establish a specific intent to kill the victim.

The only issue in this case is whether the victim was murdered by the

Defendants. It is well-settled that “[a]s a general matter, when the key issue is the

defendant‟s identity as the perpetrator, rather than whether the crime was

committed, the state is required to negate any reasonable probability of

misidentification.” State v. Neal, 00-674, p. 11 (La. 6/29/01), 796 So.2d 649, 658,

cert. denied, 535 U.S. 940, 122 S.Ct. 1323 (2002) (citing State v. Smith, 430 So.2d

31 (La.1983); State v. Brady, 414 So.2d 364 (La.1982); State v. Long, 408 So.2d

1221 (La.1982)).

“Generally, direct evidence consists of testimony from a witness who

actually saw or heard an occurrence, proof of the existence of which is at issue.”

State v. Jones, 46,758, 46,759, p. 11 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/14/11), 81 So.3d 236, 243-

44, writ denied, 12-147 (La. 5/4/12), 88 So.3d 462 (citing State v. Lilly, 468 So.2d

1154 (La.1985)). “Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of proof of

collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may

be inferred according to reason and common experience.” Id. at 244 (citing Lilly,

468 So.2d 1154, and State v. Bounds, 38,330 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/12/04), 873 So.2d

901). “When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, such

evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Id. (citing

La.R.S. 15:438).

In the present case, direct evidence placed Defendant-Davis with the victim

shortly before the murder. Direct evidence also showed that Defendant-Davis was

the beneficiary of over $645,000.00 in life insurance proceeds, that Defendant-

Davis knew that the victim had an affair, and that both Defendant-Davis and

Defendant-Saltzman lost their jobs. There was also direct evidence from both
42
Defendant-Davis and Defendant-Saltzman as to their whereabouts on the day

before the murder and the day of the murder, as well as surveillance video of the

Defendants‟ whereabouts throughout the day of the murder. The jury heard this

evidence and, thus, heard the inconsistencies in the two women‟s stories – i.e., the

jury saw the Walgreens video showing both Defendants at the store the morning of

the murder; the jury heard Defendant-Davis state that she went to Walgreens with

no mention of Defendant-Saltzman; the jury heard Defendant-Saltzman make no

mention of going to Walgreens; and the jury heard the different stories by both

Defendants as to how the Honda Accord was returned to the Davis residence. The

jury also heard direct evidence from the victim‟s sister that Defendant-Davis told

her that the victim never returned home from going to Kroger to get a Sprite for

Bailey as well as direct evidence from Kelsey Little that Defendant-Davis told her

that the victim never returned home from work. Finally, the jury heard direct

evidence that the Honda Accord‟s tire was not defective.

The jury also heard evidence in this case regarding the estimated time of the

murder, evidence of when the victim and Defendant-Davis left Jerry‟s Marine and

how long it would have taken them to get to the murder scene, evidence of the

rainy weather near the time of the murder, evidence that the Honda Accord had no

mud on it and, thus, had to arrive at the scene before the rain. Moreover, the jury

heard evidence that Hydra-Shock ammunition was found at the murder scene and

at the victim‟s residence, evidence that both Defendants were using cell phones

near the murder scene both the day before the murder and the day of the murder,

and evidence that the cell phones of both Defendants placed them in areas

inconsistent with where they claimed to be both the day before the murder and the

day of the murder. Additionally, the jury heard evidence of the Defendants‟ close

friendship and that Defendant-Saltzman relies financially upon Defendant-Davis.
43
Finally, the jury heard evidence that Defendant-Davis‟ mother stated that she

deposited the money into Defendant-Davis‟ account because Defendant-Davis said

the police froze the account due to the victim‟s death investigation when

Bartholomew‟s deposit was made on the morning of July 1, 2009, the same date

the victim‟s body was found.

As for the Defendants‟ hypotheses of innocence, the jury heard the

statements of both Defendants as to their whereabouts the day before the murder

and the day of the murder. The jury also heard the testimony of the Defendants‟

cell phone expert that the Defendants could still be where they said they were and

make cell phone calls using towers near the murder scene. Further, the jury heard

the testimony regarding the victim‟s affair with Fannie Dietz, the cell phone

records of both Fannie Dietz and her husband, as well as the testimony that a truck

similar to Mr. Dietz‟s was seen near the murder scene the day after the murder.

Finally, the jury heard the State‟s expert testify that unidentified male DNA was

found at the murder scene but no female DNA. Nevertheless, the jury rejected the

Defendants‟ hypotheses of innocence.

As this court has held, “when a jury „reasonably rejects the hypothesis of

innocence presented by the defendant[], that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is

guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.‟”

Francis, 111 So.3d at 533 (quoting State v. Strother, 09-2357, pp. 10-11 (La.

10/22/10), 49 So.3d 372, 378, quoting State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 680

(La.1984)) (alteration in original). Accordingly, we find that considering the direct

and circumstantial evidence in this case, the jury reasonably rejected the

Defendants‟ hypotheses of innocence, including any possibility that someone other

than the Defendants committed the murder.

44
In a somewhat similar case, the second circuit found sufficient evidence of

second degree murder. In Jones, 81 So.3d 236, the second circuit found sufficient

evidence to convict Jones even though the direct evidence only placed the victim

with Jones‟ shortly before the victim‟s murder. Circumstantial evidence, however,

showed that bullets recovered from Jones‟ trunk were consistent with those used to

shoot the victim, and cell phone records put Jones and the victim together in the

area where the victim‟s body was found. The court held:

The direct evidence that Lioy [victim #1] left Shreveport with
Jones and Ms. Foster [victim #2], coupled with the circumstantial
evidence of the cell phone records that put them together in the area
where the body was found, and that the bullets found in Jones‟ trunk
were consistent with those that shot Lioy, all support a finding beyond
a reasonable doubt that Jones killed Lioy, with a specific intent either
to kill or inflict great bodily harm. The suggestion that somebody else
might have intervened in this sordid sequence of events and shot Lioy
is simply not sufficiently reasonable to dissuade a reasonable jury
from its finding of Jones‟s guilt. This assignment of error lacks merit.

Id. at 245.

Likewise, we find that the direct and circumstantial evidence presented in

the present case supports a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant-

Davis and Defendant-Saltzman killed the victim with the specific intent to kill or

inflict great bodily harm. Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:24 provides, “[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.” The evidence presented at trial shows that Defendant-Davis

was with the victim shortly before the time the State alleges the murder occurred.

Defendant-Davis and Defendant-Saltzman were in frequent communication the

day before the murder and the day of the murder. Both Defendants gave

inconsistent statements as to their whereabouts and the cell phone records of both

45
Defendants place them near the scene of the murder both the day before and the

day of the murder. Although Defendant-Saltzman was not with the victim shortly

before the murder as was Defendant-Davis, the cell phone records indicate that

Defendant-Saltzman was continually communicating with or was physically with

Defendant-Davis both the day before the murder and the day of the murder. On

the day of the murder, Defendant-Saltzman was seen with Defendant-Davis that

morning, continually communicated with Defendant-Davis throughout the day

(even within the hour the State alleges the murder occurred), and was seen with

Defendant-Davis shortly after the State alleges the murder was committed.

Defendant-Saltzman was also driving the victim‟s Honda Accord the day of the

murder. Finally, Defendant-Davis knew the victim had been having an affair,

admitted to being in a financial bind, and stood to benefit financially from life

insurance policies. Defendant-Saltzman was a very close friend of Defendant-

Davis and had been financially reliant on Defendant-Davis in the past.

Considering this evidence, we find that the jury reasonably rejected the

Defendants‟ hypotheses of innocence and convicted them both of second degree

murder.

Accordingly, this assignment lacks merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE:

In this assignment of error, Defendant-Davis argues that the trial court erred

in failing to swear in the jury as required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 790 and then

granting the State a continuance after the commencement of trial. For the reasons

that follow, we find that this assignment lacks merit.

The case was called for trial on November 7, 2011, at which time jury

selection began and continued until a jury was selected on November 10, 2011.

Before the conclusion of jury selection, the testimony of one of the State‟s
46
witnesses, Deputy Baumgarten, was perpetuated. The day after jury selection was

completed, November 11, 2011, the State requested a continuance because of the

physical health of the prosecutor in the case, Rick Bryant. Over the objections of

defense counsel for both Defendants, the trial court granted the continuance. The

trial court also refused defense counsels‟ request to swear in the jury.

Subsequently, on January 6, 2012; January 18, 2012; and January 24, 2012,

the trial court heard testimony and argument regarding a motion to quash and

dismissal filed by both Defendants. Both Defendants argued that double jeopardy

attached when the State perpetuated the testimony of Deputy Baumgarten before

the trial court granted the State‟s continuance based on Mr. Bryant‟s health. The

Defendants also argued that the charges against them should be dismissed because

of the prejudice they suffered by the granting of the continuance. The trial court

denied the motion to quash and to dismiss the charges.

On February 24, 2012, the Defendants sought review of the trial court‟s

denial of their motion to quash and dismissal of the charges. On March 28, 2012,

this court denied the writ application, ruling as follows:

WRIT DENIED; STAY DENIED: Defendants argue error in the
trial court‟s granting of a continuance and that jeopardy had attached
and further prosecution would expose them to double jeopardy.
Although the trial court stated that it granted a continuance, because it
had no legal authority to do so, what was actually granted was a
recess. Even though erroneously referred to as a continuance, the
court‟s action must be treated as a recess. See La.Code Crim.P. arts.
707, 708, and 761 and State v. Hedgespeth, 42,921 (La.App. 2 Cir.
1/9/08), 974 So.2d 150, writ denied, 08-467 (La. 10/3/08), 992 So.2d
1008.

Additionally, Defendants argue error in the trial court‟s denial
of their motion to quash, based on the erroneous granting of a
continuance, and alleged prejudice resulting therefrom. As no
continuance was granted, the motion is rendered moot. If either party
continues to believe any prejudice had resulted from the recess, it can
be addressed in the trial court.

47
This matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to
proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible, with the original
jury, if such can be accomplished without resulting prejudice to any
party. If not, as jeopardy has not attached, a new jury panel shall be
called. See Hedgespeth, 974 So.2d 150.

Thereafter, on April 18, 2012, the supreme court denied a writ application

filed by the Defendants. Davis and Saltzman, 85 So.3d 1255.

This court has held that great deference should be afforded to pre-trial

decisions:

Although a defendant may seek review of a pretrial ruling even after a
pretrial supervisory writ application is denied, when the defendant
does not present any additional evidence on the issue after this pretrial
ruling, the issue can be rejected. State v. Hebert, 97-1742 (La.App. 3
Cir. 6/3/98), 716 So.2d 63, writ denied, 98-1813 (La.11/13/98), 730
So.2d 455, cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1072, 120 S.Ct. 1685, 146 L.Ed.2d
492 (2000) (quoting State v. Magee, 93-643, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir.
10/5/94), 643 So.2d 497, 499). However, “[j]udicial efficiency
demands that this court accord great deference to its pre-trial decision
unless it is apparent that the determination was patently erroneous and
produced unjust results.” Hebert, 716 So.2d at 68. Our review of the
record reveals no additional evidence for the defendant‟s allegations
of prosecutorial misconduct which would support his pretrial motions.

State v. Perry, 12-298, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/12), 101 So.3d 575, 580, writ

denied, 12-2657 (La. 5/24/13), 116 So.2d 659 (alteration in original). We find that

the Defendants have failed to prove that this court‟s pre-trial ruling was patently

erroneous or produced unjust results. Thus, we abide by our pre-trial decision and

refuse to reconsider whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the

continuance/recess.

However, we will address a new argument raised by the Defendants on

appeal. The Defendants argue, in their appellate brief, that this court erred in

finding the trial court‟s grant of a continuance was actually the grant of a recess:

Under the particular facts of this case, the continuance was
specifically just that, a postponement without date of the trial that had
already commenced. A recess is defined in La.C.Cr.P. Art. 708 as a
“temporary adjournment”. The instant trial was continued without
date for a period that ultimately consisted of five and one-half months
48
and was not in any way a temporary adjournment. Further, it matters
not the length of the delay, or the term used to describe the delay, the
issue is whether a party is prejudiced by the delay, and if so, the error
is reversible. State v. Hedgspeth, 42,921 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/9/08), 974
So.2d 150; State v. Love, 00-3347 (La. 5/23/08), 847 So.2d 1198.

According to the Defendants, the trial court‟s action should have been

considered an “illegal dismissal.” In making this argument, the Defendants cite

State v. Hedgspeth, 42,921 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/9/08), 974 So.2d 150, writ denied, 08-

467 (La. 10/3/08), 992 So.2d 1008, the case cited by this court in its writ ruling. In

Hedgspeth, the state moved for a “continuance” after ten of the twelve jurors were

selected and sworn. As the reason for the continuance, the state explained that it

had been under the impression that DNA testing had been done and the results

were inconclusive. The state discovered, however, that DNA testing was never

actually performed. The defense objected to the continuance because ten jurors

had already been selected. Finding that the DNA evidence was potentially critical

evidence to the case, the trial court granted the state‟s motion and rescheduled trial

for approximately three months later. When the trial finally took place, it was

before a different trial judge and an entirely new panel of jurors.

On appeal, the second circuit stated the following regarding the

appropriateness of a continuance in this situation:

Here, in order to determine whether the grant of the motion for
continuance was proper, we must first determine if the initial trial had
“commenced.” Louisiana C. Cr. P. art. 761 provides that, “a jury trial
commences when the first prospective juror is called for
examination.” Since it is undisputed that 10 of the 12 prospective
jurors had been selected, pursuant to articles 761 and 708 the trial had
already commenced. Thus, the trial court was without authority to
grant a “continuance,” and in effect the action was an illegal
dismissal. However, Hedgspeth must show he has been prejudiced by
this action, as the dismissal alone does not constitute reversible error.
State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.05/23/03), 847 So.2d 1198.

Id at 154 (footnote omitted).

49
Adopting the second circuit‟s “illegal dismissal” terminology, the

Defendants argue that the continuance/recess granted in the present case should

have been considered an “illegal dismissal.” The Defendants acknowledge,

however, that even if the continuance/recess is considered an “illegal dismissal,”

the Defendants must still show they suffered prejudiced in order for the dismissal

to constitute reversible error. Alleging prejudice, Defendant-Davis argues:

In the instant case, the trial court granted a continuance of trial after
all of the jurors had been selected and also after the State had started
its case by taking testimony from its key crime scene witness and
introducing over 20 pieces of evidence into the record. The State was
forewarned of serious deficiencies in their investigation during the
cross-examination of their lead forensic investigator, Baumgarten, and
the continuance allowed them to correct these errors and deficiencies.
The delay caused by the wrongful granting of the continuance allowed
the State time to correct problems regarding crime scene integrity, to
test evidence, interview witnesses, and hire an expert witness to help
shore up deficiencies that were made apparent during the first trial.
An opportunity afforded them only because of the wrongful granting
of the continuance and the delay caused by it.

The Defendants‟ prejudice argument is very similar to the argument made by

the defendant in Hedgspeth and rejected by the second circuit:

On appeal, Hedgspeth complains that as a result of this
“continuance” the state was given additional time to prepare for trial
and that he was entitled to have his case tried before the jurors already
selected. The right to have one‟s trial completed by a particular
tribunal is within the protection of the constitutional guarantee against
double jeopardy, since it is that “right” that lies at the foundation of
the rule that jeopardy attaches when the whole jury is empaneled and
sworn. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 98 S.Ct. 2156, 57 L.Ed.2d 24
(1978). However, in the instant case, that “right” had not yet attached
when the trial court granted the state‟s motion and dismissed the
partial jury. . . .

....

Moreover, the public has an interest in affording the state one
full and fair opportunity to present its evidence to an impartial jury.
See Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 93 S.Ct. 1066, 35 L.Ed.2d
425 (1973). The right to have one‟s case tried before the jurors
already selected cannot serve as a barrier to full and fair prosecution
of the defendant under these particular circumstances. See State v.
Marshall, 410 So.2d 1116 (La.1982). In the case at hand, since the
50
jury was not sworn pursuant to La. C. Cr. P. art. 790, nothing prevents
the state from pursuing a full and fair prosecution.

Further, we find that the record does not support, nor are we
persuaded, that the additional preparation time afforded the state
warrants reversal. Had the state moved for and been granted a
continuance only a day earlier (prior to the examination of the first
prospective juror), or had the trial been originally scheduled for a later
date, such actions would not have been an abuse of discretion. The
trial judge found that the DNA results were critical to the case because
they could essentially exonerate the defendant or provide strong
evidence of his guilt. The state explained that the crime lab was
backlogged and that the earliest available trial date for the
recommenced proceedings would be April 24, 2006, to which defense
counsel responded: “That date‟s agreeable, Your Honor.”

In fact, under these circumstances, if the trial court denied the
continuance motion, the state could have immediately nolle
prosequied the charges and reinstituted the prosecution under a
separate docket number (which, practically speaking, would have
been tried at a later date). In State v. Albert, 430 So.2d 1279 (La.App.
1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 433 So.2d 711 (La.1983), the prosecutor
entered a nolle prosequi at a first trial after 6 of 12 jurors had been
selected. In Albert, the subsequent conviction and sentence were
affirmed. In State v. Payton, 2006-1202 (La.App. 4th Cir.02/28/07),
954 So.2d 193, the trial court held that the state‟s failure to timely
seek a continuance did not bar reinstitution of the same charges after
the prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi immediately upon the denial
of its motion for a continuance on the day trial was originally set to
begin.

Id. at 154-55.

Likewise, we find that the present Defendants have failed to show that they

were prejudiced by the trial court‟s grant of the continuance/recess, even if it

should have been considered an “illegal dismissal.” First, contrary to the

Defendants‟ argument in Assignment of Error Number 4, double jeopardy had not

attached when the trial court granted the continuance/recess. See Davis and

Saltzman, 12-236; Hedgspeth, 974 So.2d 150; La.Code Crim.P. arts. 592 and 790.

According to La.Code Crim.P. arts. 592 and 790, double jeopardy does not attach

in a jury trial until the jury is sworn together to try the case. Second, as she did in

her perpetuated testimony, Deputy Baumgarten testified at trial as to how the

51
evidentiary value of the crime scene could have been compromised by police

activity in this case. Third, the Defendants actually benefitted by the additional

DNA testing performed after the continuance/recess was granted. Ms. Suchanek

testified that she discovered no female DNA on the items recovered from the

scene. Thus, the Defendants (being females) actually benefited from the fact that

more items were tested after the continuance/recess, and no female DNA was

found on any of those items.

Finally, we note that the Defendants allege that the remedy for the prejudice

they suffered by the delay in trial is a reversal of their convictions and a remand for

a new trial. Thus, even if this assignment of error was found to have merit, the

remedy requested would allow the State to have yet another chance to retry the

Defendants.

In this assignment of error, the Defendants also claim that the trial court

erred in refusing to swear the jury in after they were selected. In support,

Defendants cite La.Code Crim.P. art. 790, which provides, “When selection of

jurors and alternate jurors has been completed, and all issues properly raised under

Article 795 have been resolved, the jurors shall then be sworn together to try the

case in a just and impartial manner[.]” During the discussion of whether the case

would be continued/recessed because of Mr. Bryant‟s health issues, the Defendants

requested the trial judge swear in the jurors selected. The issue of whether the jury

would be sworn was discussed in open court. The Defendants made known their

desire for the jury to be sworn, and the State made known its desire for the jury not

to be sworn in order to protect against the attachment of double jeopardy. The trial

court ruled that it would not swear the jury in:

And I‟m not going to swear the jury in. Once the jury is sworn
in then jeopardy does attach, and there would be no - - if I did that it
would be - - I‟m sure if I swore that jury in I‟m sure the State would
52
withdraw its Motion to Continue because they wouldn‟t be able to
retry the case.

On appeal, the Defendants cite no authority for their allegation that the trial

court erred in refusing to swear the jury in. Our research finds a similar case out of

the fifth circuit – State v. Tuckson, 00-1408 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/01), 781 So.2d

807, writ denied, 01-1129 (La. 1/25/02), 806 So.2d 671. In Tuckson, all of the

jurors and two alternates were selected and sworn individually. The state

requested that the jury not be sworn together until the following day. The trial

court granted the state‟s request over the defendant‟s objection. The following

day, the state nolle prosequied the charges against the defendant, claiming that

double jeopardy had not attached since the jury was not sworn. That same day, the

state refiled the charges against the defendant. Although the defendant filed a

motion to quash on double jeopardy grounds, the trial court denied the motion.

The defendant was subsequently tried and convicted.

On appeal, Tuckson argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to

quash the second bill of information based on double jeopardy. The court of

appeal found that since the jury was not sworn pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art.

790, double jeopardy had not attached. The real issue, the court of appeal stated,

was “whether the trial court erred in refusing to swear in the jury „. . . together to

try the case . . .‟ immediately following the selection of the two alternate jurors.”

Id. at 813. Finding no reversible error in the circumstances before it, the court of

appeal stated:

As provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 795, prior to the jury being
sworn together or as a whole, either the defense or the State may still
exercise his/its challenges for cause. The defense suffered no
prejudice from the trial court‟s refusal to swear the jury immediately.
The decision effected [sic] both the defense and the State in the same
way. As a matter of practice, trial court judges will sometimes wait
until trial is ready to commence before swearing the jury together or
as a whole, just in case of unforeseen events.
53
In a related matter, this Court is concerned with the use by the
State of its powers to dismiss charges against a defendant, followed by
refiling of those same charges, in order to obtain a continuance of the
trial. The ruling in this case might be different if that scenario had
been argued and proven. There are other, more appropriate
procedural vehicles at the State‟s disposal when it finds its witnesses
are unavailable for trial. For instance, the State might have requested
and been granted, if appropriate, a trial continuance. See La.C.Cr.P.
arts. 709, 710. However, based on the record before us, we do not
find the abuse of discretion that would prevent the trial of this
Defendant on the charges filed against him. This assignment of error
lacks merit.

Id.

Although the Defendants in the present case argue that they were prejudiced

by the continuance/recess granted by the trial court, as we have already stated, the

Defendants have failed to show prejudice. In addition to the considerations already

discussed, the Defendants have also failed to prove that they were prejudiced by

the fact that they were not tried before the jurors originally selected. The

Defendants fail to allege or point to any indication in the record that the verdict

would have been different had the original jurors heard their case. Thus, we find

that the trial court‟s refusal to swear the jury immediately after they were selected

does not constitute reversible error in this case.

One final issue that the Defendants mention in this assignment of error is the

fact that after granting the continuance, the trial judge personally addressed the

jurors off the record, with no counsel present. At the conclusion of the discussion

regarding the continuance/recess, the trial judge stated that he was going to visit

with the jurors in the jury deliberation room. Without alleging what the trial court

spoke to the jury about, the Defendants merely allege that “any private

communication with a juror after trial begins, or is in recess, is deemed

presumptively prejudicial. Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450

(1954); State v. Sinegal, 393 So. 2d 684 (La.1981).” The jurors spoken to by the
54
trial judge in the case were not the jurors that ultimately convicted the Defendants.

Therefore, they suffered no prejudice by the trial court speaking with those jurors.

Thus, this issue has no merit.

For the foregoing reasons, this assignment has no merit.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS TWO AND THREE:

The Defendants combine these two assignments of error in their briefs. The

Defendants allege that the trial court erred as a matter of law in not finding

prejudice and in not granting the Defense‟s Motion to Quash/Dismiss. As

discussed in the previous assignment, the Defendants filed a Motion to Quash

Prosecution and for Dismissal of the Indictment with Prejudice. The trial court

denied the motion, and the Defendants sought review in this court. On March 28,

2012, this court denied the writ application. In its ruling, this court allowed the

Defendants to re-urge prejudice if they still felt it was applicable. Prior to trial, the

Defendants did re-urge their prejudice claim, but the trial court denied the motion.

In this assignment, the Defendants basically argue the same prejudice

argument raised in the first assignment of error but with more specificity. The

Defendants cite Hedgspeth for the proposition that an erroneous continuance or

recess that causes prejudice constitutes reversible error. First, the Defendants

allege that the continuance/recess allowed the State to send additional items to the

lab for testing after Deputy Baumgarten‟s perpetuated testimony revealed the fact

that numerous items had not been tested. However, as stated above, the

Defendants (being females) actually benefited from the fact that more items were

tested after the continuance/recess since no female DNA was found on any of those

items.

The Defendants argue further that if not for the continuance/recess, “the

State would have lost credibility with the jury when it had to attempt to explain the
55
severe lapses in its shoddy murder investigation” and the reason why it focused on

the Defendants without fully investigating the crime. This was particularly

important, the Defendants argue, given the fact that the State‟s case was entirely

circumstantial. By having a second trial, the Defendants argue, “the State has

undoubtedly had a second chance to correct its errors to the well-documented and

distinct prejudice of the Defendant.”

The Defendants point to Deputy Baumgarten‟s testimony as a specific

example of how the State was allowed to correct its errors. According to the

Defendants, Deputy Baumgarten acknowledged in her perpetuated testimony that

the deputies walked all over the crime scene, and no one knew which footprints

were pertinent. Deputy Baumgarten also acknowledged in her perpetuated

testimony that the deputies‟ handling of the tire‟s lug nuts destroyed the possibility

of lifting any fingerprints off of the lug nuts. Without referring to any specific

testimony, the Defendants claim that Deputy Baumgarten changed her testimony

when she testified live at trial. After reviewing Deputy Baumgarten‟s perpetuated

testimony and her live testimony at trial, there is a slight difference in her

testimony regarding the amount of footprints located at the scene. In her

perpetuated testimony, Deputy Baumgarten answered “yes” when asked if the

number of people walking around the crime scene concerned her. Deputy

Baumgarten‟s trial testimony regarding footprints, however, was not as concrete.

At trial, however, Deputy Baumgarten did testify as to how the evidentiary

value of the crime scene could have been compromised by police activity in this

case. Deputy Baumgarten agreed with defense counsel that someone at the crime

scene did not follow the well-settled protocol that nothing at the crime scene

should be touched until photographs are taken. Deputy Baumgarten further

testified that she would be concerned if one of the deputies placed the “defective”
56
tire in the trunk of the Honda Accord, because evidence from outside of the trunk

could be transferred to the inside of the trunk. Thus, in her trial testimony, like her

perpetuated testimony, Deputy Baumgarten testified as to how police activity may

have affected the evidentiary value of the crime scene in this case.

Defendant-Davis further argues:

It is quite apparent that Baumgarten studied the transcript of her
videoed trial testimony, and decided to sanitize the damaging
admissions of mistakes which Defense counsel elicited during the
videoed testimony at the first trial. The State did not use the videoed
testimony, but produced Baumgarten live at the second trial, and the
Court did not allow mention of the first trial (See App. Rec. Vol. 24,
p. 5281, ll. 18-21). The opportunity for the State‟s key witness to be
forearmed with the knowledge of what Defense counsel will ask
about, and also repair the damage of her previous testimony, is
fundamentally unfair and prejudicial to the Defense. At the second
trial, the Defense had to impeach Baumgarten with a transcript of her
previously videoed testimony, thus confusing the jury. The Defense
should have been able to cross-examine Baumgarten one time and
before the jury. Giving the State a second “bite at the apple” severely
prejudiced the Defense. Having to have revealed Defense strategy
and attorney work-product is also severely prejudicial to the Defense.
But for the erroneous continuance, the State would not have this
decided trial advantage.

While it may appear that Deputy Baumgarten attempted to “sanitize” some

of her perpetuated testimony as to the excessive walking around by police officers

at the crime scene, she was clear in her trial testimony regarding other areas in

which the crime scene could have been compromised. Furthermore, at trial,

defense counsel was able to use Deputy Baumgarten‟s perpetuated testimony

during his cross-examination of Deputy Baumgarten. There is no indication that

defense counsel‟s inability to explain the origin of the prior testimony was

confusing to the jury. Additionally, as the State argues in brief, the reason for

Deputy Baumgarten‟s perpetuated testimony at the first trial was her unavailability.

Since she was available for the second trial, the State argues it would have been

inappropriate to introduce her perpetuated testimony. Thus, the State‟s offer of

57
Deputy Baumgarten‟s live testimony does not appear to have been a tactical move

to allow her to change her testimony, especially in light of the fact that the

continuance/recess was, at the time, undisputedly needed for Mr. Bryant‟s illness.

The Defendants also complain that the new items tested for DNA revealed

unidentified male DNA under the victim‟s fingernails, on the victim‟s driver‟s

license, on the victim‟s belt buckle, and on a Michelob Ultra bottle cap found in

the Honda Accord. The Defendants allege that the lab report containing this

information was not given to them until the middle of trial, leaving them

insufficient time to obtain additional testing. In Ms. Suchanek‟s opinion, the most

likely donor of the DNA was the victim. Ms. Suchanek also testified on cross-

examination that the unidentified male DNA could belong to anyone and that no

female DNA was discovered at the scene. Considering the inconclusiveness of

Ms. Suchanek‟s testimony regarding the unidentified male DNA found at the scene

along with her conclusive testimony that no female DNA was discovered at the

scene, the Defendants have failed to show how they were prejudiced by the

additional DNA testing performed after the first trial.

As additional prejudice, the Defendants complain that during the first trial,

the State was made aware of the defense witnesses, and the continuance/recess

afforded the State extra time to find and interview these witnesses. Furthermore,

the deputies that contaminated the crime scene were free to coordinate their

testimonies with Deputy Baumgarten “to try to repair the obvious damage to the

State‟s case.” These general allegations of prejudice are not sufficient to warrant a

reversal of the Defendants‟ convictions. Moreover, the continuance/recess

afforded the defense the same opportunity to interview witnesses and develop its

case.

58
Ultimately, the evidence that convicted the Defendants was their

inconsistent statements to police and the fact that their cell phone records placed

them in the vicinity of the murder both the day before and the day of the murder.

This evidence existed at the first and second trials. Thus, we find that the

Defendants fail to show that the trial court‟s grant of a continuance /recess caused

them to suffer prejudice sufficient to warrant a reversal in the case.

Accordingly, this assignment lacks merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER FOUR:

By this assignment of error, the Defendants claim the trial court erred in

failing to grant their motion to dismiss on grounds of double jeopardy.

Additionally, the Defendants allege that this court erred in its pre-trial writ ruling

when it found the motion to dismiss was moot. The State argues that judicial

efficiency demands this court to defer to its pre-trial writ ruling finding double

jeopardy had not attached in this case. Considering the great deference that should

be shown to this court‟s pre-trial writ ruling and considering the fact that the

Defendants raise the same arguments on appeal that they raised in their pre-trial

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11290432. Public record. Not legal advice.