STATE v. LAWSON (2026)

In this criminal case, a jury found Defendant-Appellant Christian J. Lawson (“Defendant”) guilty of aggravated assault with a firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:37.4. Defendant asserts on appeal that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, that the 10-year sentence was excessive and unduly harsh, and that the district court erred in the denial of the motion to reconsider sentence. After review of the record, we affirm Defendant's conviction of aggravated assault with a firearm and remand to the district court for a ruling on Defendant's motion to reconsider sentence, reserving to Defendant the right to appeal his sentence once the district court has ruled on his motion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 14, 2022, a shooting on Elmira Avenue resulted in the victim, Asia Cook, incurring four gunshot wounds. The following facts were established through trial testimony by: Sean McElrath, the Section Head of the Forensic Firearms Unit of the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) Crime Lab; Detective Thomas Oakes, an NOPD patrol officer who was the first to the scene of the shooting; Robin Bradstreet, an NOPD crime scene investigator; Destiny Martin, an NOPD criminalist; Ronika Stewart, the custodian of records for the Orleans Parish Communications District; Detective Barry Blanchard, the lead detective in the investigation into the shooting; Ms. Cook, the victim; and Denise Guy, a nurse at University Medical Center. Additionally, Defendant's account of the facts surrounding the shooting was established through his interview with Detective Blanchard.

The Shooting

These facts were consistent between Defendant's statements to Detective Blanchard and Ms. Cook's trial testimony: Defendant and Ms. Cook had begun dating just a couple of days prior to the shooting. The two went to dinner together on the evening of August 13, 2022, where they both drank alcohol. The two then went back to her residence on Elmira Avenue and began to engage in sexual relations. During that time, Defendant believed that he heard her call him by another man's name.

At this point, their accounts differ. Ms. Cook contends that Defendant asked to go through her phone so that he could find the person whose name she said. She stated that he “started yelling and getting disrespectful,” and his anger frightened her. So, she took his phone (unable to find hers) and ran to the bathroom to call the police. Ronika Stewart, custodian of records for the Orleans Parish Communications District, testified that she authenticated a 911 call from Ms. Cook, placed at 2:57 a.m. on August 14, 2022. Ms. Stewart stated that she could hear a male voice in the background. Ms. Cook stated that Defendant told her “to give him his phone back ․ before he shoots [her].”

Ms. Cook then stated that she returned the phone to Defendant and pushed him out of her house, locking the door behind him. After making sure the back doors were locked, she grabbed her gun and brought it back into the living room, near the front door where she had pushed out Defendant.

Ms. Cook fell asleep on the couch for a few moments but was awoken by a loud boom. She asserts that Defendant kicked open her front door, though she did not initially realize it was he who did it. She immediately fired her gun toward the front door, and Defendant fired back multiple times. Once she realized it was Defendant shooting at her, she hid behind the side of the couch.

Police Response and Investigation

Detective Oakes testified that on August 14, 2022, he was employed as a NOPD patrol officer. He was dispatched to Elmira Avenue, where he was flagged down by a woman who appeared to have suffered a gunshot wound. After ensuring her safety, he focused on apprehending Defendant, who was still on the scene. He testified that he did not see any injuries or blood on the Defendant.

Detective Oakes did not take a statement from the victim, but the jury watched his body-worn camera footage. The footage depicts Ms. Cook flagging him down and explaining that Defendant kicked her door open and shot her because she called him another name while engaging in sex.

Other officers arrived on the scene while Defendant was still nearby. Defendant told the officers that he dropped his gun near the Sewerage and Water Board treatment plant and stated that Ms. Cook took his things before locking him out. Detective Blanchard observed several spent bullet casings outside of the residence, including on the front lawn, driveway, and porch. He testified that this indicated someone fired the handgun in close proximity to the front of the residence. He also noticed a damaged front door with a shoe print on the front. Detective Blanchard prepared a search warrant for the residence, and the subsequent search yielded additional bullet casings, blood, and live ammunition.

Meanwhile, other officers secured the area around the residence and searched for evidence. Robin Bradstreet, a NOPD crime scene investigator, testified that she recovered: a “Glock 22 Gen5 40-caliber pistol” and a magazine with two live rounds from the Sewerage and Water Board treatment plant building; another 40-caliber live round in the same general area; and seven spent .40-caliber casings from the driveway and porch area of Ms. Cook's residence. Destiny Martin, a NOPD criminalist, testified that she was a crime-scene technician on the date of this shooting and collected two 9-millimeter spent casings from the living room and one 9-millimeter spent casing from the bedroom floor of the residence. Further, she collected a black Canik 9 by 19 pistol from a black trash can in front of the next-door residence and a matching magazine.

Defendant's Interview

Defendant was taken to the Fourth District station for an interview while EMS transported Ms. Cook to University Medical Center. Detective Blanchard interviewed Defendant at 4:32 a.m. on the day of the shooting. This interview was recorded and played for the jury without objection.

Defendant offered a different course of events surrounding the shooting in his statement to Detective Blanchard. He stated that after Ms. Cook said someone else's name during their sexual relations, he got up to leave while she attempted to fight him. He exited the house, and when he tried to re-enter, she shot at him. He ducked and then shot back.

Ronika Stewart testified that she authenticated a second 911 call from Defendant, placed at 3:12 a.m. He stated that he was outside the residence and that he shot his girlfriend in the buttocks after she shot at him. He also asked that an ambulance be sent for her.

In his statement to Detective Blanchard, Defendant initially stated that he simply turned the knob to re-enter the home. However, while taking Defendant's statement, Detective Blanchard asked him to “lift his shoes” and noticed that the pattern of his shoes was consistent with the pattern he saw on the damaged front door. Detective Blanchard asked if Defendant had kicked the door open, to which Defendant replied that he had “tried” to kick it open. Therefore, Defendant conceded that he kicked the door down only after Detective Blanchard confronted him with evidence of such. Detective Blanchard testified that Defendant kicking Ms. Cook's door down and forcing his way into her residence was the most relevant evidence he considered in arresting Defendant.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Defendant submits multiple assignments of error on appeal, summarized as follows:

1. There was insufficient evidence to convict Defendant of aggravated assault with a firearm because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant was not acting in self-defense.

2. The imposition of the ten-year prison sentence was unconstitutionally excessive and unduly harsh.

3. The district court erred in the denial of the motion to reconsider sentence.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court set forth the applicable standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence in State v. Bracken as follows:

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we rely on Jackson v. Virginia, which states that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, must “convince a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of every element of the offense.” 443 U.S. 307, 316, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2787, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). This standard gives the trier of fact full responsibility to “resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” Id. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789. Accordingly, “the rational credibility determinations of the trier of fact are not to be second guessed by a reviewing court.” State v. Williams, [20]11-0414, p. 18 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/29/12), 85 So. 3d 759, 771 (citing State v. Juluke, [19]98-341, p. 4 (La. 1/8/99), 725 So. 2d 1291, 1293). A factfinder's credibility determination should only be disturbed if it is clearly contrary to the evidence. State v. Wells, [20]10-1338, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/30/11), 64 So. 3d 303, 306 (citing State v. Vessell, 450, So. 2d 938, 943 (La. 1984)).

2024-0208, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/5/25), 414 So. 3d 1039, 1043-44.

“The excessiveness of a sentence is a question of law, and a reviewing court will not set aside a sentence [for excessiveness] absent a manifest abuse of discretion by the trial [judge].” State v. Freeman, 2023-0074, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/7/23), 357 So. 3d 880, 885 (alterations in original) (citation omitted).

A trial court is afforded broad discretion in making sentencing decisions and an appellate court will not set aside an imposed sentence if the record supports the sentence imposed. State v. Bradley, 2018-0734, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/15/19), 272 So. 3d 94, 99-100 (quoting State v. Williams, 2015-0866, pp. 12-13 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/20/16), 186 So. 3d 242, 250). Thus, “[t]he relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate.” State v. Mathieu, 2018-964, p. 4 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/6/19), 283 So. 3d 1041, 1045 (citing State v. Cook, [19]95-2784 (La. 5/31/96), 674 So. 2d 957).

Id., 2023-0074, p. 7, 357 So. 3d at 885-86.

DISCUSSION

Assignment of Error 1: Insufficient Evidence

In his first assignment of error, Defendant argues that the State failed to prove he was not acting in self-defense when he shot Ms. Cook.

On self-defense claims generally, this Court has explained:

Under Louisiana law, “[t]he fact that an offender's conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct.” La. R.S. 14:18. In addition, the use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense. La. R.S. 14:19(A).

State v. De Gruy, 2016-0891, p. 18 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/5/17), 215 So. 3d 723, 733 (alteration in original). “In a non-homicide case, the analysis of self-defense as a justification is a two-step inquiry: ‘(1) a subjective inquiry into whether the force was apparently necessary; and (2) an objective inquiry into whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances.’ ” Bracken, 2024-0208, pp. 6-7, 414 So. 3d at 1043 (quoting State v. Scott, 2023-0022, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/30/23), 372 So. 3d 42, 52). However, La. R.S. 14:21 states:

A person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict.

Before analyzing Defendant's self-defense justification, we must determine whether he is entitled to make that claim. In his trial testimony, Detective Blanchard noted that the main piece of evidence which led to him arresting Defendant was the shoe print on the damaged front door. This showed that Defendant forced his way into Ms. Cook's home after leaving earlier. Only after Defendant forced his way into Ms. Cook's home did she shoot him. Based on the evidence presented, a rational trier of fact could have found that Defendant was the aggressor and cannot claim self-defense as justification for shooting Ms. Cook.

As stated above, a factfinder's credibility determination should only be disturbed if it is clearly contrary to the evidence. The jury made a credibility determination when it accepted Detective Blanchard's reasoning and rejected Defendant's self-defense claim in finding him guilty. We find that this determination was not clearly contrary to the evidence. The fact that Ms. Cook shot at Defendant only after he forced his way into her home indeed demonstrates that Defendant was the aggressor. Therefore, we need not conduct the two-step inquiry to analyze Defendant's self-defense claim, as he is precluded from making this claim under La. R.S. 14:21.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the State presented sufficient evidence at trial for a rational trier of fact to find that Defendant was the aggressor and that he could not claim self-defense. Accordingly, we affirm Defendant's conviction of aggravated assault with a firearm.

Assignments of Error 2 and 3: Excessive Sentence and Motion to Reconsider

In his second assignment of error, Defendant contends that his ten-year prison sentence, with five years suspended, for his aggravated assault with a firearm conviction is excessive.

The appellate record for this case lacked the lower court's disposition on Defendant's motion to reconsider sentence. This Court ordered the Clerk of the Criminal District Court to supplement the appellate record with its ruling on Defendant's motion to reconsider sentence. We received a minute entry from the lower court which confirmed there was no ruling on Defendant's motion. Therefore, we remand to the lower court to rule on Defendant's motion to reconsider sentence.

Having no ruling on Defendant's motion to reconsider sentence, we cannot consider Defendant's second and third assignments of error at this juncture. This Court has determined that it is not procedurally correct to review a sentence for excessiveness when the trial court has not ruled on the motion to reconsider sentence. State v. Boyd, 2000-0274, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/19/00), 775 So. 2d 463, 465.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Defendant's conviction of aggravated assault with a firearm and remand to the district court for a ruling on Defendant's motion to reconsider sentence.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

Judge Rachael D. Johnson