STATE OF LOUISIANA v. CLINTON FORD (2025)

Defendant, Clinton R. Ford, was charged by indictment with one count of first degree murder, in violation of La.R.S. 14:30(A)(1); one count of criminal conspiracy to commit first degree murder, in violation of La.R.S. 14:26 and 14:30(A)(1); and one count of obstruction of justice, in violation of La.R.S. 14:130.1(A)(1), (A)(2), and (B)(1).

Defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of indictment. He argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the case because, while it was admitted that the murder took place in Texas, there was no evidence of where the alleged robbery and/or kidnapping took place. The State argued that the victim was kidnapped and/or robbed in Beauregard Parish and then transported to Texas, where he was killed. The trial court denied Defendant's motion, ruling that the evidence presented showed the elements of armed robbery and/or second-degree kidnapping were committed in Beauregard Parish. The State later severed the charges for criminal conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder by a unanimous jury verdict and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

Defendant appeals his conviction, assigning two errors:

1. When viewed under the Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) standard, the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton “C.J.” Ford participated in either the killing of Jimmie Box or in a kidnapping of Jimmie Box during which he was killed.

2. The State failed to offer sufficient proof of proper venue both pretrial at the hearing on the Defense's Motion to Quash Count One of the Bill of Indictment and at trial.

FACTS

Melissa Box, victim Jimmie Box, Jr.’s mother, testified that on August 1, 2020, Jimmie asked to drive the family's Toyota 4Runner. She described the 4Runner as being burgundy in color with a Tackle Box sticker on the back, a rack at the top, and tinted windows. Jimmie wanted to use the 4Runner so he could pick up some wooden pallets to help his friend, Hayley Limes. According to Melissa, Jimmie had helped Hayley several times before. At around 9:00 p.m. that night, Melissa noticed that Jimmie had never left the house, so she asked him if he still planned on going anywhere. Jimmie was not sure. Melissa then went to bed. That was the last time she spoke with Jimmie.

The next day, Melissa realized that Jimmie was not home. She texted and called him, but he didn't respond. She contacted his sister, Summer, to see if Jimmie had gone to her house, but Summer had not seen him. Melissa eventually contacted AT&T, their phone carrier, to determine who Jimmie spoke to last. According to AT&T, Jimmie's last phone call occurred around 11:50 p.m. on Saturday, August 1, 2020. AT&T gave Melissa the last number Jimmie dialed, so she called the number, but no one answered. She later learned that the number belonged to Hayley Limes. Melissa attempted to call Hayley a few more times, and after receiving no response, she rode around town looking for Hayley. Melissa eventually saw Hayley and another woman, later identified as Shona West, and questioned Hayley about Jimmie's whereabouts. Hayley was of no help in finding Jimmie.

A few days later, a group of people searching for Jimmie located the 4Runner on Highway 171 and informed Melissa. Melissa managed to find the 4Runner on the highway and get close to it in traffic. The driver was tall with a slim figure. It was not Jimmie. When Melissa saw the 4Runner she noticed the Tackle Box sticker and rack had been removed. The police eventually stopped the 4Runner at a gas station off Highway 171 in Moss Bluff, Louisiana.

Sergeant Cody Fontenot with the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office testified that he received a call about a red Toyota 4Runner that had been reported as the vehicle of a missing person. According to Sergeant Fontenot, the License Plate Reader (LPR) system located the car once it entered Calcasieu Parish and flagged it. When he located the 4Runner on the highway, Sergeant Fontenot maneuvered behind it, and the driver pulled into a gas station. A gentleman got out of the vehicle, approached him, and identified himself as Zachary Sylvest. According to Sergeant Fontenot, no one else was inside the car. Zachary was detained, and his cell phone was seized.

Detective Thompson learned that the vehicle had been obtained from James “Derek” Person's property on Tom Woodard Road in Beauregard Parish. Detective Thompson later completed two search warrants for two different residences: 1040 Tom Woodard Road, where Hayley Limes lived, and 1046 Tom Woodard Road, where Derek Person and Shona West lived.

On the morning of August 8, 2020, at around 6:00 a.m., the Beauregard Parish Sheriff's Office, the DeRidder Police Department, and the Louisiana State Police executed the search warrants. Hayley Limes exited her residence first. Derek Person and Shona West exited their residence after “an extended period of time.” During a search of the grounds, a gray subwoofer, which matched the description of the missing speaker from the Toyota 4Runner, was found in the back seat of Derek's white Dodge pickup truck. Police also found a bamboo area where Jimmie's Toyota 4Runner had allegedly been parked; tire tracks were visible on the ground.

During the search of Derek's home, police found numerous weapons and ammunition. In Derek's master bedroom, they found a brown leather holster, .35-caliber rifle ammunition, a lever-action .35-caliber rifle, a 20-gauge Remington pump action shotgun, a .22-caliber rifle, a .270 bolt-action rifle, various swords, and a BB rifle. Pieces of a disassembled 9mm handgun were also found all over Derek's home; parts were found in the recliner, in a clothes hamper, and in the kitchen. During the search of Hayley's home, police found a black and teal handgun, which Defendant allegedly had in his possession on the night of Jimmie's disappearance. They also found what appeared to be a pallet bed in Hayley's master bedroom. A search of Derek's Facebook profile revealed that the 9mm semi-automatic handgun found in his home was the same handgun he purchased in 2014; the serial numbers matched. According to Detective Travis Thompson, the weapon was sent to the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab for testing. After the search of the property, Derek Person and Shona West were arrested.

During the investigation, Detective Thompson learned that Defendant had been at Derek's property on the night of Jimmie's disappearance. This was corroborated by video surveillance. On the morning of August 2, 2020, Defendant's Dodge Ram pickup truck was captured by the Sunshine gas station's surveillance footage traveling west on Highway 112 from Tom Woodard Road. At approximately 2:17 a.m., Defendant's truck was captured by Harry's gas station's surveillance footage traveling on Highway 190 West ¹ into DeRidder towards Tom Woodard Road. According to Detective Thompson, Defendant's cell phone data lined up with Defendant's location at the time his vehicle was captured on the surveillance footage. Detective Thompson further indicated that Jimmie was captured on surveillance footage at a local Circle K gas station around midnight, right before he headed toward Tom Woodard Road. Jimmie had on “a neutral-colored t-shirt, darker shorts, and purple and gold LSU Crocs.”

Texas Rangers later notified Detective Thompson that Defendant was located and placed under arrest in San Patricio County, which is north of Corpus Christi and about six hours from Beauregard Parish. After his arrest, Defendant's phone was seized and searched pursuant to a warrant. Defendant's phone data pinpointed an oil site in Bon Weir, Texas. After learning about the Bon Weir location, Detective Thompson, along with other law enforcement agencies, searched the area. They eventually smelled decomposition and found human remains. The body was lying face down with a black rope tied around its wrists. The individual was wearing dark blue shorts and a neutral-colored shirt. There were also purple and gold LSU Crocs next to the body. An autopsy later confirmed that the remains belonged to Jimmie.

Throughout his investigation, Detective Thompson learned that Jimmie carried a 9mm handgun. He also learned through Hayley Limes that Defendant had a gun and that Derek Person and Defendant held Jimmie at gunpoint on the night of Jimmie's disappearance. He further discovered that Defendant had 9mm ammunition in his vehicle when it was searched.

Agent Paul Nixon with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) testified that he responded to the scene in Bon Weir, Texas, after Jimmie's body had been located. Agent Nixon went through the area with a metal detector and located a shell casing and bullet fragments underneath Jimmie's remains.

Detective Jedediah Irvine of the DeRidder Police Department collected surveillance footage from Circle K in DeRidder. In it, Jimmie was seen wearing a hat, a light-colored t-shirt, dark shorts, and Crocs. Detective Irvine was also involved in searches of Derek Person's property on Tom Woodard Road. During one search, police recovered the barrel of the firearm in a green bucket on the counter near the kitchen and a blue SAR Arms pistol box.

Chelsee Richardson, whom the trial court accepted as an expert in firearms examination, performed a firearms test in connection with Jimmie's case. The Beauregard Parish Sheriff's Office submitted a disassembled 9mm pistol; it came with a barrel, a magazine with ammunition, a slide stop, a folder containing different fragments, and a cartridge case. Her test fire on the gun revealed that the cartridge case recovered at the scene was identical to the one collected during the test fire. She concluded that the 9mm submitted by the Beauregard Parish Sheriff's Office fired the cartridge case that was found at the scene.

Dr. Ginesse Listi, whom the trial court accepted as an expert in forensic anthropology, testified that she conducted a trauma analysis on Jimmie's remains to determine what injuries occurred at or around his time of death. Dr. Listi found trauma on the posterior portion of the cranium as well as to the left mandible. She noted that the injuries were consistent with a classic gunshot wound. Ultimately, Dr. Listi concluded that due to the direction of travel, a bullet entered the back of the cranium and either left out of or got stuck in the mandible.

Tara Jackson testified that Defendant moved in with her mother in July of 2020. She was unsure of the exact date but noted that whenever she visited her mother during the last weekend in July, Defendant was there. Tara overheard Defendant's phone conversation with an unknown woman. Defendant told the woman that there was no reason to be nervous and that no one was following her. Defendant also said that the police did not know anything. At the time, Defendant was armed with a pistol; he had it tucked in the back of his pants. She described the pistol as a black, semi-automatic handgun. According to Tara, Defendant instructed her to say that he had been at the house the entire weekend if anyone inquired about his whereabouts.

Hayley Limes testified that she and Derek Person had previously been in a relationship, and before August 2020, they broke up. Shortly after she and Derek broke up, Derek started dating his new girlfriend, Shona West. According to Hayley, her relationship with Derek was strained and full of tension. She described Derek as a controlling and abusive person, as he would bust her door in and proceed into her house without her permission and threaten any guy he suspected she was involved with. Hayley and Shona did not get along because Shona thought Derek's behavior was acceptable. Hayley had a cordial relationship with Defendant, whom she met through Derek. Even after she and Derek broke up, Defendant remained nice to her. Hayley had a good relationship with Jimmie, who was her best friend.

Hayley admitted she lied to law enforcement on numerous occasions because she did not want to be murdered like Jimmie. She knew Derek was affiliated with people who could potentially harm her. She also admitted lying to Jimmie's mother, Melissa Box, regarding Jimmie's whereabouts because she did not want Shona to go back and tell Derek. Derek arranged for Shona to travel with Hayley so she could keep an eye on her.

After Hayley's encounter with Melissa Box, Hayley made multiple statements to the police. On August 10, 2020, she was interviewed by Detective Thompson. She told Detective Thompson that “Derek killed Jimmie and that [Defendant] was the transportation.” The following day, on August 11, 2020, she told Detective Burnett with the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office that she knew “Derek and [Defendant] were going to kidnap Jimmie while Jimmie was on his way over,” and that she saw “Derek and [Defendant] ambush Jimmie.” She also told Detective Burnett that Shona was not present, but she believed Shona knew of Derek and Defendant's plan and that Derek said Hayley should be on her knees thanking him for pulling the trigger for her and her son. Later that day, she had another interview with Detective Thompson and repeated what she told Detective Burnett. The statements Hayley made on August 11, 2020, were factually similar to the statements she made at her sentencing hearing on February 15, 2024. Hayley previously pleaded guilty to manslaughter. According to Hayley, she did not receive a benefit for testifying; she only wanted everyone to know the truth about what happened to Jimmie.

Hayley testified that on August 1, 2020, she and Jimmie ran errands and got pallets to build a pallet bed. They also went to Jimmie's house to get some tools. Jimmie asked if they could hang out later, but Hayley said she was busy. The two then went their separate ways. Around 11:00 p.m. that night, she contacted Jimmie and let him know that he could come over. Derek came over to her house after she got off the phone with Jimmie. Whenever Derek arrived, she informed him that Jimmie would be coming over later. Derek mentioned something about a drug deal that she, Jimmie, Derek, and Defendant were supposed to be doing. Derek also told her that “they were going to take him.” At the time, she did not understand what Derek meant. He then told her that they were going to hold Jimmie at gunpoint and take him. Derek was armed with a gun, which she described as a small, black pistol. Derek told her to call Jimmie and find out where he was, so she did. Jimmie was at the local Circle K picking up a Coke and some cigarettes. After her phone call with Jimmie, Derek took her phone, told her to calm down, and not to say anything. Defendant eventually showed up, and Derek gave him Hayley's blue pistol. Derek then hid in the hallway, and Defendant hid behind the counter in the kitchen. Once Jimmie entered and the door was shut, Derek and Defendant came out with their guns pointed at Jimmie. Hayley then ran to the bathroom. She heard Derek tell Jimmie to “be cool,” “nothing was going to happen,” and “they just wanted to talk.” She subsequently heard the front door shut, saw headlights through the window, and heard truck doors shut. Derek then got her out of the bathroom and handed her Jimmie's phone. Derek instructed her to go pick up her son, get rid of Jimmie's cellphone, and return to her house. So, on her way to pick up her son, she threw Jimmie's phone into a ditch on the highway. Once she returned home, she sat on the porch and waited with Shona and a guy named Emmitt. She said before she returned, Shona messaged her about some cigarettes. Shona said she could not drive Derek's truck to purchase cigarettes because it was a standard, and she could not drive the 4Runner because she did not want to get caught on camera. Shona eventually drove the 4Runner to pick up Emmitt at the A&B Trailer Parker, but she did not go anywhere else.

Hayley ended up calling Defendant around 1:00 a.m., after Derek, Defendant, and Jimmie left her house. She asked Defendant what was going on, and Defendant told her “to be cool,” “nothing is going to happen,” “everything is fine,” and “not to worry about anything.” Whenever Derek and Defendant returned, Jimmie was not with them. Defendant returned her blue handgun. Derek did not say anything to her, and Defendant did not want to talk about what happened. Furthermore, neither Derek nor Defendant said anything about Jimmie. Hayley then left Derek's house and went home. Later, Derek went to her house, and they got into an argument. Derek got physical with her and told her that she should be thankful and grateful for what he did. Derek told her that he shot Jimmie for her and her son.

The following colloquy occurred:

Q Do you remember C.J. making any comments about what Derek had done to Jimmie?

A There was a point -- I don't remember how much later it was, but there was a point where he had made a comment about how he didn't think Derek had him in it -- had it in him. Like -- not in like he was scared of it, but like, more like, okay, like, you know, my homeboy did that. You know what I'm saying, like, good job. Like, I didn't think you had it in you to do that, like, so.

Q Was he speaking to you? And by he, was C.J. speaking to you when he said this, I didn't know Derek had it in him, or was he speaking to Derek and said, I didn't know you had it in you?

A We were all three present.

Q And so, who did he direct the comment at? Do you remember?

A It was more directed towards Derek.

Q And so, it would have been similar to, I didn't know you had it in you?

A Right.

Q Have you had an opportunity to review your discovery?

A Yes, sir.

Q And the theory that C.J. Ford didn't know that Jimmie Box was bound in the truck, or didn't know he was being taken against his will, is that true or a lie?

A That's false. He knew -- he knew Jimmie was tied up [because] he helped.

According to Hayley, everyone on the property engaged in some sort of drug usage, including marijuana and methamphetamine; however, she denied using methamphetamine herself. She was unsure whether anyone was involved in a drug deal with methamphetamine on the night of Jimmie's disappearance, but she knew that Derek sold methamphetamine.

Hayley then reiterated Defendant's involvement in Jimmie's disappearance:

BY MR. ROBINSON [prosecutor]:

Q So, Mr. Noel asked you on cross-examination about when C.J. came into the trailer he was first unarmed, right?

A Yes, sir.

Q And so, I want to ask you, you responded that Derek handed him the gun?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did C.J. seem confused?

A No, sir.

Q When Derek tells him, you stand behind the counter in the kitchen, did C.J. seem confused?

A No, sir.

Q Did you have an -- what was your impression about whether they had discussed it already?

A It seemed like they knew what they were doing. Both of them were on the same page. No questions were asked. C.J. never said, well, what's going on or what are we doing? He didn't say [anything]. Just okay and he got where Derek told him to go.

Shona West testified that she was in a romantic relationship with Derek in August 2020; they had been dating for about a month and a half. She described Derek as being a good person until he started using drugs, which caused him to become a psychopath. According to Shona, Derek was scary and controlling, often threatening her. She said Derek always carried a gun. She admitted to making false statements to the police in the past, but she now wanted to tell the truth about what happened to Jimmie and do the right thing. She expressed remorse for her actions and wished she could take it all back.

Regarding her involvement, Shona drove the 4Runner and parked it in the bamboo under Derek's order; she attempted to hide it on the property. However, Derek wanted to remove the vehicle from the property, so she told Derek to bring the vehicle to her mother's house. Derek subsequently drove the 4Runner to Shona's mother's house; Defendant followed Derek in his own truck. According to Shona, the 4Runner did not stay at her mother's property; Derek and Defendant eventually moved the vehicle back to Derek's property.

Shona testified that on the night of Jimmie's murder, Derek had a black handgun, which he kept in a brown, leather holster. She admitted that she had previously lied to the police about Derek having a gun because she was trying to protect Derek and was scared for her own life. Shona described Derek as a violent person who boasted about hurting people and always had guns. She also stated that Derek was affiliated with a gang and could have people go after her.

Shona ultimately admitted that she, Hayley, Derek, and Defendant were all involved in Jimmie's kidnapping and murder. Shona first told law enforcement that Jimmie's body was dumped off a bridge, which was false. Shona said this to protect Derek. She then told law enforcement that Jimmie pulled a gun out on Derek, which was also false. Shona said she finally told the truth in her third statement to law enforcement, where she mentioned that Jimmie's body was in the woods in Texas; she did not have the exact location. According to Shona, Derek had a plan, which he shared with Defendant; however, he did not inform her of the plan.

Shona said that before everything happened, she overheard Derek tell Defendant that “he was going to kill that motherf-er.” She did not hear Defendant respond. After that conversation, Derek went to Hayley's house and then called her to send Defendant over. She admitted that she, Derek, and Defendant used drugs that night, including methamphetamine. According to Shona, Derek and Defendant left around midnight and took Defendant's Dodge pickup truck. She witnessed them drive off. Before Derek and Defendant left, Derek gave her the keys to the 4Runner and instructed her to pick up someone named Emmitt from a local trailer park. She did not know exactly where Derek and Defendant were going with Jimmie, but she knew they were going to the woods. She sensed that something bad was about to happen, knowing Derek and Defendant were about to confront Jimmie. She did not think Derek and Defendant were really going to kill Jimmie. She said whenever they returned, Derek told Hayley to clean their boots, and Derek went to take a shower. She said Defendant and Derek were gone for about an hour.

Shona then testified regarding her conversation with Defendant after he and Derek returned, stating:

Q Okay. What did C.J. say to you on the front porch?

A He was just talking about how -- because I asked what happened to Jimmie. I said, where is Jimmie? He said, you don't have to worry about him. He's not coming back. And I said, okay. And then, he was talking about how Derek had [given] him a gun as a present for what they had just did [sic].

Q Did C.J. ever make a comment about Derek's reaction at --

A Yes. Yes, sir.

Q Okay. I'd like to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Did C.J. ever make a comment about the way Derek behaved in the woods?

A Yes, sir, he did.

Q What was the comment?

A He said that when Derek heard the breath leave Jimmie's body, that he freaked out and put the casing underneath Jimmie's body.

Q C.J. told you that when Derek killed Jimmie he freaked out?

A Yes, sir.

Q In your mind, that means C.J. was right there with him?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you communicate with C.J. on the drive back?

A No, sir, I did not.

Q But you did communicate with Derek?

A Yes, sir.

Q And we know Jimmie never made it back?

A Yes, sir.

Texas Ranger Samuel “Cody” Lankford testified that he was contacted about a fugitive by the name of Clinton Ford in 2020. He went to a motel in Ingleside, Texas, where he found Defendant and placed him under arrest. Upon Defendant's arrest, Ranger Lankford collected Defendant's cell phone and searched his vehicle.

J.D. Parker, whom the trial court accepted as an expert in mobile device forensics and cellular network and geolocation analysis, testified that on August 9, 2020, he was contacted by the Beauregard Parish Sheriff's Office to help locate Jimmie. Parker reviewed Jimmie's cell data records, but they did not pinpoint any specific location. However, he was able to locate Defendant at a hotel in Ingleside, Texas, by using Defendant's call detail records. After Defendant was detained and Defendant's cellphone was collected, Parker extracted data from Defendant's cellphone, which revealed a location of interest, an oil site located on County Road 4075 in Bon Wier, Texas. According to Parker, Defendant's records showed that he was at the oil site for approximately thirteen minutes in the early morning hours of August 2, 2020, and earlier in the evening on August 1, 2020. Thereafter, Parker contacted law enforcement, provided them with the location, and then proceeded to the location. After searching the area, they were able to find Jimmie's body.

Parker stated that throughout the investigation, he performed cell data extractions and reviewed the data records for Derek Person, Shona West, Defendant, Hayley Limes, and Jimmie. Parker first discussed Jimmie's cell phone records. On the night of his disappearance, Jimmie's phone records indicated there was communication between him and Hayley around 11:05 p.m. and 11:51 p.m. The last communication transmitted from Jimmie's phone was around 1:00 a.m., about the time Jimmie arrived at Tom Woodard Road. Later, Jimmie's cellphone was disconnected from the network. Parker said that from midnight until around 3:00 a.m., there were numerous text messages between Derek, Hayley, and Shona. No communication was made with Defendant until Hayley called him at 1:47 a.m., around the time he was at the Bon Wier location.

Parker then discussed Derek's cell phone records from August 1, 2020, to August 2, 2020. According to Parker, Derek had two cell phones. Derek's cell phone records showed that he took a trip to the Bon Wier location around 7:30 p.m. on August 1, 2020, and then back to Tom Woodard Road. Shortly after midnight, Derek's records showed him traveling back to the Bon Wier location.

Afterwards, Parker discussed Defendant's cell phone records from August 1, 2020, and August 2, 2020. Defendant's cell phone records showed him around Tom Woodard Road on August 1, around 2:20 p.m. Then, later that evening, the records showed him traveling US 190 towards Bon Wier, Texas, and then back to Tom Woodard Road. The data also showed Defendant and Derek moving together.

Defendant's cell phone data placed him at Tom Woodard Road at 9:27 p.m. on August 1, 2020. Then it put him at the oil site from 1:37 a.m. to 1:50 a.m. on August 2, 2020. It placed him back at Tom Woodard Road at 2:35 a.m. on August 2, 2020. A video taken on August 2, 2020, at 2:22 p.m. on Defendant's phone showed the inside of the 4Runner. The records placed the location of the video in the Pitkin area. There were also photos taken from Defendant's cellphone that showed the 4Runner in the bamboo thicket area on Tom Woodard Road. Another photo taken from Defendant's phone showed a keychain with black 550 paracord around it, which was the same type of material used to bind Jimmie's hands. In another video recorded on Defendant's phone on August 5, 2020, at 11:58 p.m., Defendant stated that he did not want to go back to that dark place. In that video, Defendant also said: “I assume you know what happened.” “Not proud of it.”

Parker then stated he and two FBI agents interviewed Defendant on August 20, 2020, at the Beauregard Parish Sheriff's Office. During the interview, Defendant said he went to Derek's house because there was a drug deal that was supposed to take place for a quarter pound of marijuana. He said he waited on Jimmie, whom he also knew as “Cricket,” to arrive at Derek's because Jimmie was the person with the connection and money. Jimmie showed up at Hayley's house, so Defendant and Derek walked over there. Derek told Defendant to get into his truck because they were about to take a ride. Defendant stated that he, Derek, and Jimmie smoked a blunt on the way to their destination. He said Jimmie was in the back passenger seat, and Derek was in the front passenger seat. He said they had two blunts, one on the way there and another while waiting for the sellers to arrive at the meeting point. He was instructed to move his truck to the end of the road so that the sellers could see it and know where to go. He did not know who the sellers were or where they were coming from. He said they were at the location for about half an hour. He said that whenever he moved his truck, Jimmie and Derek stayed at the beginning of the road. He moved the truck, turned off the lights, listened to music, and waited. He said that about ten or fifteen minutes later, Derek came back to the truck, got in, and said “let's go.” Jimmie was not with him. Derek said that everything would be settled at the house and that the two needed to go.

Defendant claimed he did not ask Derek about Jimmie's whereabouts. He said he was strictly transportation. He was supposed to make about $700 for his services. He said that after Derek got into the truck, they drove away from the tanks and went to where Derek's aunt lived. He did not know which aunt lived near the area; he just followed Derek's directions. At a certain point, Derek told him to turn around, and they headed back to Derek's house. He said he had never gone with Derek to purchase any drugs. He usually purchased drugs from Derek at his house. He then said the buy was supposed to involve two guys who were coming from Houston.

Defendant said he hardly knew Jimmie. He had only run into him a handful of times at Derek's house. He explained the deal was about three thousand dollars in total; he denied having any knowledge about the drug business. He said he would only use drugs for his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused by the military and anxiety.

Defendant stated that he requested to speak with detectives because he knew that his family was safe, out of the state, and that no one was after them. He said his family's safety was his primary concern, and that was why he kept quiet about many things. He said he left to go to Corpus Christi to work so he could get back on his feet and attempt to reunite with his family. He said the day after the drug deal, Derek asked him to help him install two AC units at Derek's house. A few days later, he took pictures of Jimmie's vehicle to send to someone because Derek said that they could get at least seven grand for it. At the time, he did not know who the car belonged to; he said every time he saw Jimmie, Jimmie was in a different vehicle. He thought everything was legit; he was following instructions. He did not learn until later that the car was “hot” or stolen. He said he started backing away from Derek because Derek did not want him or Hayley to leave the property. He said he realized something was going on. He later admitted that he saw Jimmie in the 4Runner on the night of the drug deal; he said Jimmie usually drove a Dodge truck or a GMC Yukon. The day after the drug deal, he noticed Jimmie's car had been moved, so he assumed that Jimmie had made it back. He said Derek wanted him to drive the car to Houston to sell it, and he declined Derek's offer. However, a video on his phone proved otherwise, as Defendant stated he intended to drive the car to Houston and return, with someone following him in another car.

Defendant denied kidnapping anyone, as he did not bind or force anything on Jimmie. He said Jimmie was not bound at the property off Tom Woodard Road. If Jimmie was bound, it was after he was dropped off at the tanks. He claimed he did not know what happened, but Derek said it had to be him who handled it. Defendant did not know what Derek meant by handling it. Derek further said he had to handle it “Boondocks” style, which meant “[e]xecution, on your knees, facing away, one shot to the back of the head.” Defendant said if that happened, it was while he was sitting in his truck, and he did not know about it. He claimed the shot could have been muffled by the radio.

Defendant later stated that Derek had a gun case at his house that had at least eight or nine prepaid phones in it. He said Derek was always paranoid when it came to engaging in any drug deals. He said if he had known what was going to happen, then he would have made sure Jimmie's DNA was not in his truck by tarping his backseat. He said he had no problems with Jimmie. Defendant thought someone was out there waiting because when he drove off from the tanks, Jimmie was still breathing. He claimed that he saw Jimmie standing there. Regarding Jimmie's hands being bound and the presence of paracord, Defendant stated that Derek used the paracord to tie the chainsaw when he was cutting limbs out of a tree. He also used paracord to secure his bed whenever he moved, as he didn't have any other cord in his truck. He said Derek had black paracord, but he did not see any black paracord on him that night. Defendant claimed that he did not figure out Derek's plan to kill Jimmie until after he was arrested. Whenever J.D. Parker asked him if he and Derek had discussed the plan beforehand, Defendant said that Derek “had said something about putting a cricket on a wire or cricket on a hook.” When asked what that meant, Defendant said that Derek was going to confront Jimmie about the text messages that he showed Derek; in those messages, Jimmie said he was going to kill Derek. Allegedly, one message said that Jimmie was going to rob the house, and another message said that he “could've killed Derek three weeks ago if Hayley would've let him.” Defendant also admitted that Jimmie could have been bound at Derek's property:

Parker: Oh, I was just going to say it's fair to say that you believe that Cricket could've been tied up at the house?

Ford: Now, I do, yeah and I think it was before we left, did I know it at the time, no, did I know it even after we got to the tanks, no, but after everything and reaccounting [sic], yeah, I think before we left, I think that's why they took so long getting in on their side.

Defendant said he was set up to be the fall person, and he had no idea what was happening at the time. He indicated that he knew something was off, as it did not sit right with him. He also claimed that he did not have a firearm. He claimed that all he was doing was transporting the drugs. He said he had no knowledge of anything about a murder occurring. Defendant then admitted that he knew something was up before everything took place based on Hayley and Derek's actions; Defendant described Hayley as being skittish and Derek as being calm. He knew Derek was going to set something up to confront Jimmie, but he did not know anything about Derek wanting to end Jimmie's life.

Defendant said later that night, he knew he was transporting Jimmie to an undisclosed location so that Derek could confront him. However, Defendant claimed that he did not realize that Derek was going to kill Jimmie.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The analysis for insufficient evidence claims is well settled:

When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, rehearing denied, 444 U.S. 890, 100 S.Ct. 195, 62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979), State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559 (La.1983); State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982); State v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981). It is the role of the fact finder to weigh the respective credibility of the witnesses, and therefore, the appellate court should not second guess the credibility determinations of the triers of fact beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review. See State ex rel. Graffagnino, 436 So.2d 559 (citing State v. Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 (La.1983)). In order for this Court to affirm a conviction, however, the record must reflect that the state has satisfied its burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Kennerson, 96-1518, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/97), 695 So.2d 1367, 1371.

This court has stated the following regarding appellate review in cases relying on circumstantial evidence:

When the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the state “must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence” in order to convict. State v. Camp, 446 So.2d 1207, 1209 (La.1984). “Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which elemental factors may be inferred according to reason, experience and common sense.” State v. Burns, 441 So.2d 843, 845 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1983). However, La.R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review on appeal than the rational juror's reasonable doubt standard. The statute serves as a guide for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence. On appeal, the issue is whether a rational trier of fact, when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could find that all reasonable hypotheses of innocence were excluded. State v. Williams, 13-497 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 124 So.3d 1236, writ denied, 13-2774 (La. 5/16/14), 139 So.3d 1024.

State v. Baumberger, 15-1056, pp. 10−11 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/16), 200 So.3d 817, 826−27, writ denied, 16-1251 (La. 5/26/17), 221 So.3d 859, cert. denied, 583 U.S. 950, 138 S.Ct. 392 (2017).

The testimony of a single witness, if believed, and absent internal contradictions or irreconcilable conflicts with physical evidence, is sufficient to support a conviction. State v. Pierre, 14-1071 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/6/15), 170 So.3d 348, writ denied, 15-1151 (La. 5/13/16), 191 So.3d 1054.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

In his first assignment of error, Defendant claims that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in either the killing or kidnapping of the victim.

First Degree Murder Conviction

To affirm Defendant's conviction, the court must find sufficient evidence to conclude Defendant had the specific intent to kill Jimmie Box, Jr., or to inflict great bodily harm and that Defendant was engaged in a second degree kidnapping when the killing occurred. Second degree kidnapping, as urged in this case, is defined as the “forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one place to another” where the victim is “[p]hysically injured” or “[i]mprisoned or kidnapped when the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon.” La.R.S. 14:44.1(A)(5), (B)(1). A specific intent killing during the commission or attempted commission of a second degree kidnapping is a first degree murder. La.R.S. 14:30(A)(1). Specific criminal intent is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act. La.R.S. 14:10(1). Specific intent may be formed in an instant and may be inferred from a defendant's actions and the circumstances surrounding the incident. State v. Cousan, 94-2503 (La. 11/25/96), 684 So.2d 382; State v. Maxie, 93-2158 (La. 4/10/95), 653 So.2d 526.

“All 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.” La.R.S. 14:24.

Not all principals are automatically guilty of the same grade of the offense ․ [I]in order to be a principal to first degree murder, an accused who did not physically commit the crime must be shown to have personally possessed the specific intent that the victim be killed.

State v. Ortiz, 96-1609, p. 13 (La. 10/21/97), 701 So.2d 922, 931, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 943, 118 S.Ct. 2352 (1998). “[A] person may be a principal to the offense even though he did not personally have possession of the weapon used in the commission of the crime.” Id.

Defendant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in either the kidnapping or killing of Jimmie Box, Jr. According to Defendant, most of the evidence presented at trial focused on James “Derek” Person, the individual who was identified at trial as the person who shot and killed Jimmie. Defendant contends that he was unaware of Derek's intention to kidnap and kill Jimmie, that he did not participate in the kidnapping and killing of Jimmie, and that he lacked the intent to kill Jimmie or cause him great bodily harm. Defendant claims he agreed to drive Jimmie and Derek to Texas so they could complete a drug transaction. Defendant asserts he knew that Derek wanted to confront Jimmie regarding Jimmie's recent behavior; however, Defendant denied having any knowledge of Derek's intention to cause great bodily harm to Jimmie, much less kill him.

The State suggests Defendant and Derek discussed their plan to ambush Jimmie with guns, kidnap him, drive him to Texas in Defendant's truck, and kill him prior to Jimmie ever being called by Hayley. The State further suggests Defendant's remark that Derek freaked out when the breath left Jimmie's body placed him outside his vehicle and at the murder scene. It also shows that Defendant knew Derek intended to murder Jimmie and aided Derek in doing so. Defendant's statement also destroys any suggestion of a drug deal.

Jurisprudence and Analysis

Although Defendant claims the evidence does not support the verdict, the record proves otherwise. The evidence reflects that Defendant and Derek drove to Bon Weir on August 1 and returned shortly thereafter. Defendant participated in the kidnapping of Jimmie in that he and Derek were armed with guns when they ambushed Jimmie, tied his hands, and brought him to Defendant's truck. Derek then brought Jimmie's cell phone to Hayley and told her to get rid of it. Defendant then took Jimmie to Bon Weir where Derek shot him. Hayley testified that Defendant did not seem confused when Derek handed Defendant a gun before the ambush. Shona testified that Derek told Defendant he was going to kill Jimmie before the ambush. Shona also testified that when Defendant and Derek returned from Texas, Defendant told her Jimmie was not coming back. According to Shona, Defendant said that when Derek heard Jimmie's last breath leave his body, Derek freaked out and put a casing under Jimmie. Defendant told Shona, “Derek gave him a gun as a gift for what he did.” In his statement to police, Defendant said he, Derek, and Jimmie were going to a drug buy. He was transportation and was being paid $700. He also said Derek was going to confront Jimmie. Defendant further told police that Derek and Jimmie got out of the truck, Derek came back to the truck without Jimmie, and he and Derek left. Additional statements indicated that Derek told Defendant that Derek had to handle it execution style. Defendant said if that happened, it was while he was sitting in the truck. Defendant subsequently stated he saw Jimmie standing and breathing when they left the area where Jimmie's body was found. Defendant then denied seeing Jimmie's hands bound, but later said he believed Jimmie's hands were bound right before they left for Texas. Defendant also discussed alleged text messages he showed Derek stating Jimmie was going to kill Derek.² Other testimony was that 9mm ammunition was found in Defendant's truck. Defendant told Tara to lie about his whereabouts during the last weekend in July. He was armed with a black pistol at that time. A video and testimony proved that Defendant took steps to help dispose of Jimmie's 4Runner after he was killed. Also, Defendant made a video after the murder in which he said, “I assume you know what happened” and “not proud of it,” and mentioned something about a dark place.

Even though Defendant argues that both Hayley and Shona made inconsistent statements and admitted to lying to police multiple times throughout the investigation, it is the factfinder's role to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. The reviewing court will not second-guess the credibility determinations of the factfinder beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review. State v. Lapoint, 16-187 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/28/16), 202 So.3d 593, writ denied, 16-2087 (La. 9/22/17), 227 So.3d 824. The credibility of both Hayley and Shona was addressed in State v. Person, 23-793 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/25/24), 394 So.3d 346, writ denied, 24-1305 (La. 2/19/25), 400 So.3d 926.

Defendant's statements to police were clearly contradictory, and the jury was free to accept or reject portions of his statements and to draw any reasonable inferences from conflicting statements.

Defendant also contends that he was not the person who shot Jimmie, did not have specific intent to kill him, and was not a principal to the offense. In State v. Brooks, 505 So.2d 714 (La.1987), the supreme court discussed cases involving principals. The analysis fits here. The evidence presented at trial, along with the reasonable inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence, supports the findings that Defendant directly committed or aided and abetted Derek. At the same time, at least Derek was armed with a dangerous weapon, in forcing Jimmie into Defendant's truck and taking Jimmie to Texas. The jury could also infer that Defendant was present when Jimmie was shot and had the specific intent to kill Jimmie or to inflict great bodily harm.

Based on the evidence and the cases cited, jurors were entitled to find that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, established all elements of a specific intent homicide occurring during the enumerated felony of second degree kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt and to reject every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

In his second assignment of error, Defendant contends the State failed to offer sufficient proof to establish venue at the pre-trial hearing on his motion to quash as well as at trial.

Standard of Review/Burden of Proof

Louisiana Constitution Article 1, § 16 provides that every person charged with a crime has a right to an impartial trial “in the parish where the offense or an element of the offense occurred.”

In State v. Crooms, 22-663, pp. 8–9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/8/23), 358 So.3d 152, 158-59 (footnote omitted), writ denied, 23-341 (La. 10/17/23), 371 So.3d 1079, this court discussed venue in relation to the defendant's motion to quash as follows:

In State v. Brooks, 20-454, pp. 5–6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/19/21), 320 So.3d 419, 422-23, the first circuit discussed venue as follows:

Venue is not an essential element of the offense; rather, it is a jurisdictional matter. See La. Code Crim. P. arts. 611A & 615. Objections to venue must be raised by a motion to quash to be ruled on by the court in advance of the trial. State v. Ford, 2017-0471 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/27/17), 232 So.3d 576, 584, writ denied, 2017-1901 (La. 4/22/19), 268 So.3d 295. The State bears the burden of proving venue by a preponderance of the evidence. La. Code Crim. P. art. 615; State v. Parker, 2012-1550 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/26/13), 116 So.3d 744, 749, writ denied, 2013-1200 (La. 11/22/13), 126 So.3d 478.

Venue is a factual question and, on appeal, review is limited to whether the State submitted some evidence of proper venue. State v. Skipper, 387 So.2d 592, 594 (La. 1980). As such, review of the issue on appeal is not concerned with weighing the sufficiency of the State's evidence. State v. Eason, 2019-0614 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/27/19), 293 So.3d 61, 72. When a trial court rules on a motion to quash, factual and credibility determinations should not be reversed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial court's discretion, however, a trial court's legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review. State v. Williams, 2018-1795 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/31/19), 2019 WL 2317162 at *5 (unpublished), writ denied, 2019-01028 (La. 1/14/20), 291 So.3d 682; see also State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La. 5/23/03), 847 So.2d 1198, 1206; Eason, 293 So.3d at 72.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 611 governs the jurisdiction and venue of criminal trials and provides, in pertinent part:

A. All trials shall take place in the parish where the offense has been committed, unless the venue is changed. If acts constituting an offense or if the elements of an offense occurred in more than one place, in or out of the parish or state, the offense is deemed to have been committed in any parish in this state in which any such act or element occurred.

․

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 611(A) does not refer to any act related to the offense; it refers to “acts constituting an offense” or the “elements of an offense.” ․ Further, “the place where the effect of the criminal conduct occurs is an important consideration in determining whether the charged criminal acts have substantial contacts with the venue chosen for prosecution.” State v. Hayes, 01-3193, p. 7 (La. 1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1195, 1199 (per curiam).

Defendant's Motion to Quash

Defendant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the offense because the act constituting the offense occurred outside of Louisiana. The bill of indictment charged him with the first degree murder of Jimmie Box, Jr., in violation of La.R.S. 14:30(A)(1), which requires the specific intent to kill while engaged in the perpetration of an armed robbery and/or second degree kidnapping. Defendant contended there was no evidence shown to determine where the robbery and/or kidnapping took place. Defendant claimed, however, that there was evidence to determine where Jimmie was killed, which was in Newton County, Texas. Therefore, Defendant claimed that all criminal acts occurred in Newton County, where Jimmie's body was located.

In opposition, the State alleged there was evidence found throughout the investigation that Defendant and Derek kidnapped Jimmie from Derek's residence, transported him to Texas, and murdered him execution style. The State claimed the evidence came from statements made by Defendant as well as by other co-defendants. The State also asserted that detectives learned throughout the investigation that Defendant and the other co-defendants robbed Jimmie of his vehicle and personal belongings while armed with a dangerous weapon.

Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Quash

At the hearing on Defendant's motion to quash, the State called Detective Derek Smith of the Beauregard Parish Sheriff's Office. At the beginning of the investigation, Detective Smith spoke with Jimmie's father, Jimmie Box, Sr., to get more information regarding Jimmie's disappearance. He learned that Jimmie went to Hayley Lime's residence near Tom Woodard Road in Beauregard Parish on the night of his disappearance, which was Jimmie's last known location. Soon after, Jimmie's cell phone was turned off. According to Detective Smith, Jimmie's cell phone and vehicle could not be located at that time. Detective Smith also learned that Jimmie was friends with Hayley and her ex-boyfriend, Derek Person. Derek also lived on Tom Woodard Road; he and Hayley shared a driveway. Detective Smith said that days after Jimmie's disappearance, he received a call about Jimmie's car being found in Calcasieu Parish. The driver of the car, Zachary Sylvest, said that he got it from Derek. According to Zachary, Derek instructed him to dispose of the car and take it to a chop shop for destruction. This information subsequently led to a search warrant being issued for Derek's property. After searching Derek's property, Derek and his girlfriend, Shona West, were arrested. Hayley was eventually arrested as well. Both Shona and Hayley told detectives that while they were at Tom Woodard Road, Derek and Defendant tied Jimmie's hands, placed Jimmie in Defendant's truck, and took him to Texas, all while Derek was armed with a handgun. According to Detective Smith, Jimmie's body was eventually located in Texas, and his hands were bound behind his back. A shell casing was also found at the scene. The casing matched a 9mm firearm that was located at Derek's residence and purchased by Derek a few years prior. Detective Smith also learned that Jimmie had a gun in his possession on the night of his disappearance, but it was never recovered.

The State presented affidavits for arrest warrants dated August 11, 2020, and October 19, 2020.

The trial court subsequently ruled on Defendant's motion to quash:

THE COURT:

615 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that, “improper venue shall be raised in advance of trial by motion to quash and shall be tried by the Judge alone. Venue shall not be considered an essential element to be proven by the State at trial, rather it shall be a jurisdictional matter to be proven by the State by the preponderance of the evidence and decided by the Court in advance of trial”.

So, that's what we are here about, that motion to quash to determine whether Louisiana is an improper venue. And the Article 611 provides a [sic] pertinent part, “that all trials shall take place in the Parish where the offense has been committed unless the venue has changed. If acts constituting an offense or if the elements of an offense occurred in more than one place, in or out of the Parish or State the offense is deemed to have been committed in any parish in this State in which any such act or element occurred”.

So, I have took [sic] at basically uncontradicted evidence, except for the possibility that maybe only one hand was seen and one officer's report as being tied, to suggest -- but certainly by preponderance of the evidence, what the evidence has been presented in this hearing shows that elements of Second Degree Kidnaping or Armed Robbery were committed in this Parish.

Now whether a jury is going to find that rises to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt as well as the other elements of First-Degree Murder or Criminal Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Murder, that will be for that factfinder to decide. But certainly, the evidence presented today, based upon the statements that [were] presented suggest that at least 51 percent or tipping of the scale that more probable than not, which is what preponderance of the evidence means. Those elements that -- in Beauregard Parish, Mr. Jimmie Box, Jr.’s hands were bound, he was held at gun point, placed in a vehicle and driven outside of Beauregard Parish and then later found executed in Texas. And that the truck was property that was taken from him -- and perhaps the evidence suggests that the -- the more active person in some of what was Mr. Person, but certainly under the law of principal any action taken by Mr. Person accompanied by Mr. Ford under those circumstances have been described by the testimony I've heard today would be a principal. Whether you drive the truck, whether you tie the hands, whether you pull the trigger, if your [sic] there and you're participating in any way shape or form -- that's [sic] my words, not the code[’s] words, but it means basically the same thing and then you're a principal to the offense. I mean, even the classic scenario of the bank robbery and the murderer. If you sit away in the get away car and you don't know that your buddy has a gun or he's going inside and going to shoot somebody -- he goes inside and commits armed robbery and shoots somebody then the driver of the vehicle, by law the principal, is just as much a party to murder as the person who went inside the bank and held the gun on somebody and ultimately pulled the trigger and killed someone.

So certainly, under the law principal [sic], there is venue in Beauregard Parish for these charges and I find that the ponderance [sic] of the evidence establishes that today. I will certainly note the defense's objection to my ruling in this matter.

․

․ And I do want to finish saying something. Not only that there is certainly -- there is evidence that the preponderance [sic] that the truck was taken by gun point in affect by Mr. Ford and Mr. Person. But there was also other person [sic] property as well as a weapon of Mr. Box, Jr., as well as his cell phone that would constitute elements of armed robbery and certainly the binding of his hands and taking him against his will at gun point meets the elements of second-degree kidnapping. Anyways, I just wanted to finish that for the record.

Defendant argues that the State failed to offer sufficient proof of proper venue both during the pre-trial hearing on his motion to quash and at trial. Defendant does not dispute that Jimmie was murdered in Texas. However, Defendant contends that the felonies used by the State to pursue its charges for first degree murder, second

degree kidnapping and/or armed robbery, did not occur in Louisiana.³ According to Defendant, the State attempted to use the enumerated felony of armed robbery based on the assertion that Derek Person attempted to sell Jimmie's vehicle after he killed Jimmie. Defendant contends, however, that there was a break in the chain of events, as the alleged armed robbery took place after Derek killed Jimmie. Additionally, Defendant claims that the second degree kidnapping allegedly occurred before Jimmie's murder. Defendant argues that the alleged kidnapping was based on “the inconsistent statements of two co-defendants,” specifically, Hayley Limes and Shona West. According to Defendant, the statements made by Hayley and Shona were introduced through the testimony of a detective during the motion to quash. Defendant contends those statements were ultimately inconsistent with what the two witnesses testified to at trial. Defendant claims that Hayley and Shona's statements were based upon pure speculation and not what the two witnesses personally observed. Therefore, Defendant argues that the State failed to offer evidence of proper venue and that his conviction and sentence should be vacated.

The State argues it presented “some evidence” or proved by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing on the motion to quash that venue was proper in Beauregard Parish.

Establishment of Venue at Hearing on Motion to Quash

In Crooms, 358 So.3d 152, this court was faced with an issue regarding venue involving an out-of-state murder. In Crooms, the defendant filed a motion to quash, arguing that venue was improper in Louisiana, specifically, Vermilion Parish, because the evidence showed that the victim was killed in Texas. In opposition, the State argued that venue was proper in Vermilion Parish because the robbery element necessary to establish first degree murder under the felony murder doctrine occurred after the victim's body was dumped in Vermilion Parish. This court stated:

“Louisiana jurisprudence does not distinguish between the armed robbery which occurs before the killing of the victim and the robbery of the victim whom the has already killed.” State v. Goodley, 01-77, p. 10 (La. 6/21/02), 820 So.2d 478, 484 (citing State v. Kirkpatrick, 443 So.2d 546 (La.1983)). The determination of whether a murder was committed during the perpetration of an enumerated felony depends not on the order of events, but on “whether the murder and the felony form a continuous transaction without a significant break of events.” State v. Ramsdell, 09-1510, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/6/10), 47 So.3d 78, 84. Thus, so long as the course of events forms a continuous transaction, it does not matter whether the robbery occurred immediately before or after the killing of the victim. Id.

Id. at 161.

This court affirmed the trial court's ruling on the defendant's motion to quash, holding:

We find the felony-murder was not a continuous and ongoing transaction as suggested by the State. The evidence establishes the victim was more than likely killed in Texas and Defendant took control of the victim's truck while in Texas. If Defendant took additional items from the victim in Vermilion Parish, that would have occurred hours subsequent to the killing. The State failed to meet its burden of proving proper venue in the trial court. Given that venue is a question of fact and the factfinder's determination is afforded great discretion, we find the State has similarly failed to meet its burden of proving an abuse of discretion in the trial court's granting of Defendant's motion to quash. Accordingly, we affirm the ruling on the motion to quash for improper venue.

Id. at 162.

In this case, the State had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an element of the offense of first degree murder occurred in Beauregard Parish. La.Code Crim.P. art. 615. In contrast to Crooms, 358 So.3d 152, in this case, the felony murder was a continuous and ongoing transaction without a significant break in events. Further, the evidence presented by the State at the hearing on the motion to quash established that while in Beauregard Parish, Defendant and Derek, who was armed with a gun, tied Jimmie's hands and placed him in Defendant's truck, which established the second degree kidnapping element of first degree felony murder. The two then immediately transported Jimmie to Texas, where he was killed. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to quash.

Establishment of Venue at Trial

Defendant also claims the State failed to establish venue at trial. “Venue shall not be considered an essential element to be proven by the state at trial[.]” La.Code Crim.P. art. 615. Because the State was not required to prove venue at trial, Defendant's claim lacks merit. See State v. Clark, 02-1463 (La. 6/27/03), 851 So.2d 1055, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1190, 124 S.Ct. 1433 (2004).

CONCLUSION

The evidence at trial was sufficient to convict Defendant of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence further established that venue was proper is Beauregard Parish because the second degree kidnapping element of first degree murder took place there.

DECREE

Accordingly, Defendant's conviction and sentence are hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Highway 190 West is a common highway used by travelers going to Texas.

2.   The messages were not found on Defendant's phone.

3.   At trial, the State pursued first degree murder charges under the felony murder theory with second degree kidnapping as the enumerated felony instead of armed robbery.

CLAYTON DAVIS JUDGE