STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DERRIONTE BOYER (2025)

On July 27, 2020, Derrionte Boyer (“Defendant”) was charged by bill of indictment with principal to second degree murder of A'Martinez Jones, a violation of La.R.S. 14:24 and 14:30.1. On July 29, 2021, the State filed a “Motion to Amend Bill of Indictment,” seeking to combine the following charges with the offense at issue herein: 1) second degree murder of Justin Heath, a violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1, filed in district court docket number 222,180; 2) attempted second degree murder of Nygee Augustine, a violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:30.1, filed in district court docket number 222,181; and 3) attempted second degree murder of Terry Kyle, a violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:30.1, filed in district court docket number 222,182. This charge was consolidated with charges against three other victims and tried by the same jury, and this appeal relates solely to victim Mr. Jones.

The jury unanimously found Defendant guilty of 1) manslaughter of Justin Heath, a violation of La.R.S. 14:31; 2) manslaughter of A'Martinez Jones, a violation of La.R.S. 14:31; 3) attempted manslaughter of Nygee Augustine, a violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:31; and 4) attempted manslaughter of Terry Kyle, a violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:31. Defendant received the following sentences: 1) forty years at hard labor for the manslaughter of Justin Heath, 2) ten years at hard labor for the manslaughter of A'Martinez Jones, 3) five years at hard labor for the attempted manslaughter of Nygee Augustine, and 4) five years at hard labor for the attempted manslaughter of Terry Kyle. These sentences were ordered to run consecutively.¹

Defendant's appeal presently before this court, and pertaining to docket number 25-102, contains two assignments of error. First, Defendant contends the State failed to prove he was guilty of manslaughter of A'Martinez Jones. Second, Defendant argues the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences when his case involved a single course of conduct.

FACTS:

On the night of November 23, 2019, and into the early morning of November 24, there was a birthday party at Club New Beginnings in Cottonport, Louisiana. Among the attendees were Defendant (DT), who was sixteen, his older brother, Brent Berry (Lil Brent), and the victims, Justin Heath, A'Martinez Jones (Monty), Nygee Augustine, and Terry Kyle. For some reason, a brawl broke out on the dance floor. Defendant was fighting Mr. Heath, some women were stomping on Mr. Jones, and men and women, perhaps fifteen to twenty, were fighting with fists, feet, and bottles. The brawl lasted for at least five minutes, and in the end, the fighting forced security to empty the club. As Defendant was ejected by security, he yelled at Mr. Heath, saying, “On my mama, I'm going to kill you.” Because Mr. Jones was still dazed by the many strikes to the head, Mr. Heath was helping Mr. Jones to the exit.

However, the fight was not over. There was just one door through which the clubgoers could exit, and at its threshold, they all started fighting again. Mr. Jones fell to the ground. Then gunshots rang out. A few yards from the exit, Defendant shot into the crowd with the pistol his brother gave him. Defendant fled once Mr. Heath and Mr. Jones fell. In all, Nygee Augustine was hit in the arm and beneath the knee cap; Terry Kyle was hit in the foot; A'Martinez Jones was hit in the arm but died primarily due to the head injury he incurred during the fighting; and Justin Heath was hit eight times and died from his wounds after arriving at Bunkie General Hospital.

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 one error in the minutes of sentencing.

According to the transcript of sentencing, the trial court ordered the ten-year sentence imposed for count two, principal to manslaughter, “to run consecutive to any other sentence.” The minutes, however, fail to reflect this statement by the trial court. “[W]hen the minutes and the transcript conflict, the transcript prevails.” State v. Wommack, 00-137, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/7/00), 770 So.2d 365, 369, writ denied, 00-2051 (La. 9/21/01), 797 So.2d 62. Thus, we order the amendment of the minutes of sentencing to correctly reflect the trial court's order that the ten-year sentence imposed for count two, principal to manslaughter, run consecutively to any other sentence imposed.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE:

In his first assignment of error, Defendant contends the State failed to prove he is guilty of manslaughter of A'Martinez Jones beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant submits it was never proven that the shot he fired was fatal. Hence, the State failed to prove the element of causation.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court has set forth the standard of review as follows:

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 (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 credibilities of the witnesses, and therefore, the appellate court should not second guess the credibility determinations of the trier of fact beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review. See Graffagnino, 436 So.2d at 563, citing State v. Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 (La.1983). To obtain a conviction, the elements of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. F.B.A., 07-1526, pp. 1–2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/28/08), 983 So.2d 1006, 1009, writ denied, 08-1464 (La. 3/27/09), 5 So.3d 138.

In this appeal, Defendant was convicted of manslaughter of A'Martinez Jones. Manslaughter is defined by La.R.S. 14:31:

(1) A homicide which would be murder under either Article 30 (first degree murder) or Article 30.1 (second degree murder), but the offense is committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool reflection. Provocation shall not reduce a homicide to manslaughter if the jury finds that the offender's blood had actually cooled, or that an average person's blood would have cooled, at the time the offense was committed; or

(2) A homicide committed, without any intent to cause death or great bodily harm.

As noted above, Defendant's argument stresses lack of causation since multiple factors contributed to the death of Mr. Jones.

In State v. Small, 11-2796, pp. 21–22 (La. 10/16/12), 100 So.3d 797, 812 (second alteration added) (footnotes omitted), the supreme court explained causation, albeit in the context of negligent homicide, stating:

Regarding causation, this Court has addressed the type of causal connection the state must show between a defendant's conduct and the victim's death for a defendant to be criminally culpable where multiple causes led to the death. In State v. Matthews, 450 So.2d 644 (La.1984), we held that “[i]t is not essential that the act of the defendant should have been the sole cause of the death; if it hastened the termination of life, or contributed, mediately or immediately, to the death, in a degree sufficient to be a clearly contributing cause, that is sufficient.” Matthews, 450 So.2d at 646 (quoting State v. Wilson, 114 La. 398, 38 So. 397 (1905) (involving death from pneumonia caused by gunshot wound)). The Matthews court noted that a similar standard for determining causation-in-fact approved by LaFave and Scott in their treatise on substantive criminal law was adopted by the Court in State v. Durio, 371 So.2d 1158 (La.1979). Matthews, 450 So.2d at 646. In Durio, this Court found that the state could establish causation by showing that the “defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the forbidden result.” Durio, 371 So.2d at 1163–64. In State v. Martin, [539 So.2d 1235 (La.1989)], we upheld Martin's conviction as a principal to negligent homicide even though it was his partner in a drag race who struck the victim's vehicle. We held that Martin's participation in the drag race was a “substantial factor in the victim's death.” 539 So.2d at 1239.

Also, in a prosecution for murder, “the criminal agency of the defendant as the cause of the victim's death must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Mosely, 475 So.2d 76, 79 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1985).

Evidence and Testimony

As noted above, before his death, the victim, A'Martinez Jones (“Mr. Jones”) was beat on the head inside the club and then shot in the arm outside the club. The bullet wound was undoubtedly caused by Defendant; but, with so many assailants, tracing who caused or contributed to the head injury is more difficult. However, the record clearly depicts Defendant's involvement in the brawl and his participation in the group that attacked Mr. Jones inside the club.

At the trial, witness Rhondita James when asked if she saw anything unusual happening in the club that night, testified she saw fighting, and “[i]t was [Defendant], his [brother] Little [Brent] against Justin and Monty.”² Another witness, Kristen James, testified, “[T]here was a gang fight with A'Martinez and whatever on this side. And Justin and DT was [sic] fighting, they were fighting each other, they was [sic] one on one. But then there was a gang fight.” On cross, she said she saw several people kicking and stomping on Mr. Jones. Additionally, Shondale Latrice James testified she saw Defendant and Justin Heath fighting and that lots of people ran to where they were fighting. Nevertheless, she did not see anyone strike Mr. Jones.

Lastly, the security guard, Shawn Wilson, testified that Mr. Jones was “ganged” on the dance floor, and when asked whether he saw Defendant strike Jones, he replied, “Well he was in the crowd, I just ․ I'm not going to say what [sic] I saw him ․” Mr. Wilson broke up the fight and started to force everyone out of the club. He described what happened next as follows:

Q. And was anybody allowed to stay in the club?

A. No, well I made Justin, Monty and the two girls stay in the club. And I put the girls and Mr. Boyer because they were more of the aggressors than anything. So I put them I gave them a chance to go home. And that's why I put them out first to try to calm down the situation. Everybody in the club was gone outside, everybody was outside. It was just us, the owner and the ladies at the door and one of my security guys was still inside.

Q. All right how long did that last?

A. Maybe about ․ I tried for fifteen minutes but it didn't even make it to ten because Monty wasn't looking too hot. He just couldn't ․ he couldn't shake back; he was just out of it. So I was like ․

Q. And that's A'Martinez Jones?

A. Yes. And we tried to get him to the hospital and we're trying to walk him out, he couldn't even walk. So I got him on one arm, Justin got on the other arm. And the two girls they all ․ we all tried to help him to the door. As soon as we got to the door, we got bombarded by everybody. And they started fighting again.

Q. All right. And when you say everybody, was it the same people ․

A. It was the same people I just put out.

Q. All right. Did you see the defendant then?

A. Yes I did.

Thus, while Mr. Jones's head injury was caused by multiple assailants, four witnesses placed Defendant as one of the assailants who fought in the crowd as Mr. Jones's opponent.

As for how the head and gunshot injuries led to Mr. Jones's death, Doctor James Lynn Bordelon, the coroner of Avoyelles Parish, who was accepted as an expert witness in general surgery and forensic investigation, testified that he was called to the club after the shooting. By then, Mr. Jones was in an ambulance, and it was there that the doctor performed a limited autopsy of the victim's body. “At that time,” Dr. Bordelon testified, “I was able to determine that [Mr. Jones] did have evidence of blunt force trauma to the head, to the left forehead.” The forehead had a contusion with an overlying abrasion. Dr. Bordelon also noticed a gunshot wound on the triceps of the victim's right arm. Though he was only doing an external examination of the arm and would need a forensic autopsy to be certain, Dr. Bordelon did not think the bullet wound was sufficient to cause rapid death. “[Y]ou would have to have a tremendous amount of bleeding of extenulation [sic] through that wound in order to die a rapid course,” he explained. However, the “closed head injury,” which Dr. Bordelon suspected the victim suffered, could lead to rapid death. According to Dr. Bordelon, a closed head injury is

an injury within the skull or the body framework around the brain which basically you'll see blunt force trauma to the head or the skull and you can imagine everything within the skull, if it swells or there's bleeding on the brain it has a very limited amount that it can swell, because of a contained space of the bones of the skull, the cranium.

․

So when you receive blunt force trauma to the head that can lead to bleeding issues surrounding the brain or within the brain itself. And can lead to increasing cranial pressure and lead to rapid death.

Still, Dr. Bordelon could not say for certain whether the victim suffered a closed head injury, that is, not until he received Dr. Christopher Tape's forensic autopsy report. While Dr. Tape's findings will be discussed in detail below, his report confirmed Dr. Bordelon's suspicion. “[Mr.] Jones had basically an acute subdural hemorrhage,” said Dr. Bordelon in discussing the findings,

which means a blow ․ a bleed around the brain, between the brain and the skull itself which basically was enough to cause his brain to shift from the left to the right. And actually to shift from up to down into the cranial magnum what we call the vertebral column where the spinal cord sits. And at that point in time the brain goes through a process called herniation. When the brain goes through the process of herniation it puts pressure on the brain stem the vital center of the body that controls our breathing and everything that leads to rapid demise and death.

Dr. Christopher Tape, who performed the forensic autopsy on Mr. Jones, was accepted as an expert in forensic pathology. While Dr. Tape testified as to his autopsy of Mr. Jones in detail, the State introduced a diagram of Mr. Jones's injuries into evidence. With the diagram, Dr. Tape explained that Mr. Jones suffered a subdural blunt force injury to the head, which was a significant injury. He said

Basically, the brain swells and there's nowhere to go, it's not only the skull but the derm area it's stuck there and the only way it can go is basically down where the spinal cord is. It presses on the brain and presses on the spots that make you breathe and make your heartbeat. So it basically shuts down your body.

Additionally, Dr. Tape testified the head injury would have caused the victim to be disoriented; but since he did not know how quickly the bleeding occurred, he was not certain how quickly Mr. Jones became disoriented.

As for the gunshot wound, the doctor testified he retrieved a bullet from Mr. Jones's upper right arm, and he described the wound it made as “irregular,” as in “not round,” and it was a “big old wound.” A picture of it was introduced into evidence. Dr. Tape noted the major blood vessels in the arm were not damaged, but there were a lot of vessels in that area, and the wound caused a lot of bleeding. As Dr. Tape further explained on cross-examination, the bullet did not hit muscle or bone, and though the bullet did not hit major vessels, “there would have been blood loss and pain regardless. This blood loss and pain would likely increase the heart rate and blood pressure, exacerbating the brain injury, and therefore likely contributing to the death.” Considering the impacts of the subdural head injury and bullet wound, Dr. Tape determined both injuries contributed to the death of Mr. Jones. The cause of death, as Dr. Tape put it, was “blunt force injuries to the head due to assault with contributions of gunshot wound to arm.” However, to what degree the bullet wound contributed to the death could not be easily answered. “Most deaths are a complex combination of factors,” Dr. Tape testified, stating:

And I deal with a lot of people that have a combination of natural disease and overdose. So it's not really one or the other but it's a combination of all these factors. Sometimes people are just shot in the head and it's simple to [sic] gunshot wound to the head. In this case it's a little more complex in that there is a brain injury and it's a serious brain injury but there is also the significant injury to the arm. So contributing factors can be a little tricky because you can sometimes have a case where somebody has a 97% heart disease causing the death and 3% drugs caused the death. You still call it ․ it's heart disease with contribution of overdose basically. And so even though it's a small little overdose it's still that's what pushed them over the edge. So contributing factors can be very small. In this case it's not 3% but it's something, it's not the main part of the death but certainly contributed for a number of reasons, because of the blood here and there's pain here. So that's basically causing your heart to raise and your blood pressure to increase and those are the last things you want you [sic] basically have a brain injury.

․

But both together I think caused the death. And I mean just like I say it's causing the swelling to be worse. The main thing that's causing it to be worse that's sort of exacerbating that death or it's exacerbating one injury that exacerbates the other. You have to consider a contributing factor. The other way I look at these is can I ignore this ․ can I ignore this gun shot wound to the arm with this big wound the amount of blood loss. And I think I can't. It's something, it's significant enough to be contributing factor. So that's why I included it.

On cross examination, Dr. Tape acknowledged that to verify his conclusion concerning the gunshot's contribution to the death, there would need to be a study, but this study had yet to be done.

On re-direct examination, Dr. Tape concluded his testimony with the following:

I'm an independent expert ․ And I'm trying to figure this death out. And again I can't ignore this gunshot wound it's [sic] the way I put it. I think there's enough there that it contributed to the death in a number of different ways. So that is my expert opinion to a medical degree of certainty.

To supplement Dr. Tape's statements above, we note some relevant passages from his autopsy report:

CIRCUMSTANCES:

The decedent was a 28-year-old black man who was reportedly discovered in a car seat lying on his girlfriend's lap. The decedent was intubated but was pulseless and resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful. There is a gunshot wound to the right upper arm that appeared non-life-threatening in nature. There were injuries to the left forehead brow area. Another individual was shot with multiple gunshot wounds including gunshot wounds to the body. According to the autopsy witness, the second victim was covering this decedent after the decedent had been allegedly beaten in an altercation.

FINDINGS:

The primary findings at autopsy include blunt force injuries to the head including an acute subdural hemorrhage as well as a gunshot wound to the right arm. There are scalp hemorrhages and hemorrhages on the left forehead and eyebrow area. There are no skull fractures. There is a subdural hemorrhage on the left>right that is acute in nature. The brain is slightly edematous with a mass effect from left to right and with uncinate herniations.

There is a gunshot wound to the right arm with a minimal wound tract with projectile fragments recovered likely not representing a full projectile. There are no fractures of the arm bones and no damage to major vessels. There are no pale organs to indicate excessive blood loss.

․

OPINION:

Likely the death resulted as a combination of the traumatic brain injury due to blunt force injuries to the head and the gunshot wound to the right arm. The gunshot wound to the right arm has an irregular entry and with fragments likely not representing a whole projectile consistent with a possible ricochet or previous intermediate target. Although the gunshot wound did not hit major vessels, there would have been blood loss and pain regardless. This blood loss and pain would likely increase heart rate and blood pressure, exacerbating the brain injury, and therefore likely contributing to the death.

Defendant's Argument

Defendant acknowledges he fired a handgun, but he submits the evidence established Mr. Jones died not from his bullet wound but primarily from his traumatic brain injury which Defendant argues he did not inflict. As Mr. Wilson testified, Mr. Jones was stomped, kicked, and hit with bottles and other items by Defendant's brother, Brent Berry, and several women during a brawl on the dance floor prior to the shooting. Indeed, Defendant argues that he was among the crowd, but Mr. Wilson could not say whether Defendant took part in the beating of Mr. Jones. Defendant notes the coroner, Dr. James Bordelon, considered the bullet wound a “flesh wound” and submits Dr. Tape testified that the gunshot's contribution to the death of Mr. Jones was less than “3%.” The gunshot was not “the main part of the death but certainly contributed for a number of reasons,” and the cause of death was “blunt force injuries to head due to assault with contributions of gunshot wound to arm.” Defendant concludes that Dr. Tape's testimony was “insufficient to establish [Defendant] caused the death by shooting,” as the bullet wound was neither a “substantial factor” nor a “clearly contributing cause,” and it did not “hasten[ ] the termination of life.”

State's Argument

In response, the State contends the expert testimony given at trial clearly established that Defendant contributed to Mr. Jones's death by shooting him. Specifically, it notes Dr. Tape “unequivocally testified that the gunshot wound was a contributing factor in [Mr. Jones's] death.” Thus, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the jury was correct in finding that the State carried its burden in proving Defendant was guilty of manslaughter.

Analysis

The following cases illustrate to some extent the circumstances where courts have found the defendant contributed to the victim's death. In State v. Stone, 33,383 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/15/00), 758 So.2d 997, writ denied, 00-2145 (La. 6/1/01), 793 So.2d 181, which was cited by the State, the defendant stabbed the victim multiple times, and the victim later died in the hospital from a stroke. On review, the second circuit noted the following expert testimony:

In this case, the Caddo Parish Coroner, Dr. George M. McCormick, II, testified regarding his autopsy of the victim and his findings regarding the cause of death. During direct examination, Dr. McCormick testified as follows:

District Attorney Q: Dr. McCormick, did you perform an autopsy on George [Cassel] on July 18th of 1997?

Dr. McCormick A: Yes, ma'am I did.

District Attorney Q: And from that autopsy, were you able to determine Mr. [Cassel's] cause of death?

Dr. McCormick A: Yes.

District Attorney Q: And what were your findings?

Dr. McCormick A: I found Mr. [Cassel] had been stabbed five times. Four were superficial, one was a serious wound which struck his left lung. He was hospitalized for treatment of that stab wound. While in the hospital, he had a stroke which was his final cause of death.

․

District Attorney Q: And as a result of your autopsy, what did you determine caused that stroke?

Dr. McCormick A: The stab wounds.

On cross-examination, Dr. McCormick testified, as follows:

Defense counsel Q: And could this stroke have been caused because he had the occluded carotid artery?

Dr. McCormick A: Carotid, yes, sir. No, it was not caused because he had that carotid occlusion. What the carotid occlusion did was make him susceptible to having a stroke if he suffered some further insult. The insult that he suffered was the stab wounds. Now, the heart of the matter, if I might presume in explaining that answer, would he have had the stroke three days after he was admitted if he hadn't been stabbed. God can answer that question, I can't.

․

Dr. McCormick A: But we have a very sick man who suffers a major body insult. He loses 10 to 15 percent of his blood volume. He has to be hospitalized. He gets pneumonia, and then he has the stroke of what is already, I agree, a damaged part of his body and that caused his death.

Defense counsel Q: Okay. And-

Dr. McCormick A: But for the stab wound, he would not have died at that point in time.

Defense counsel Q: But for the stab wound, he would not have been in the hospital?

Dr. McCormick A: But for the stab wound, he would not have died of the stroke at that point in time.

Dr. McCormick continued by stating that under the given facts he was “certain” that Mr. Cassel's stroke was caused by the stab wounds. Dr. McCormick also testified that he had received and read the full medical chart of Mr. Cassel's hospitalization prior to reaching his conclusion regarding the cause of death.

Id. at 1001–02 (alterations in original).

To the second circuit, regardless of whether the “substantial factor” or “contributing cause” standards were used, the doctor's testimony above “met or exceeded the required showing on the element of causation” since he testified “unequivocally that the stabbing precipitated the victim's stroke and his ultimate demise.” Id. at 1002.

Also, in State v. LeBouef, 532 So.2d 365 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1988), this court examined a claim of insufficiency of evidence where the defendant shot a victim who later died in the hospital from a blood clot. Regarding his conviction, the defendant contended the victim's blood clot was not a result of the shooting but because of her inactivity and prior health problems. “However,” this court said,

the victim's treating physician, Dr. Kaufman, and the pathologist who performed the autopsy on the victim, Dr. Laga, testified otherwise. Dr. Kaufman stated that the cause of death, a massive pulmonary embolus, or blood clot, was caused by the victim having trauma and major surgery. Dr. Kaufman testified that the facts that the victim was elderly and obese were contributing causes, but the gunshot wound and subsequent hospitalization were the direct causes of the pulmonary embolus which caused her death.

Dr. Laga testified that heart disease and high blood pressure were not contributing causes of her death. He found that the clot formed subsequent to her receiving the gunshot wounds, the clot was caused by the trauma of the gunshot wounds and subsequent surgery, and the gunshot wounds were a substantial factor in causing the victim's death. Dr. Laga explained the sequence of events as follows:

“She died, as I already mentioned, as a result of–as a delayed type of reaction to the passage of the bullet through her left upper leg. As I mentioned, there are three steps in that. One is the formation of the clot at that site, high caliber, like a snake, forming there. Secondly, at one point in time, as a result of a major effort, whatever, that snake-like structure comes loose and moves and blocks the blood vessels going to the lung. That's two. Thirdly, the right side of the heart has to work against this obstruction. It did for about eighteen hours․ So there is a direct link between those three. The formation of the clot over a three-, four-week period after the shooting in that leg. Then the second step, the clot coming loose, which result (sic) in movement of the clot and giving her the chest pain, for one thing, when she came in and also difficulty in breathing when she came in. And I am still surprised that the right side of her heart held out for the seventeen or eighteen hours it did against that obstruction. So this is the sequence of events and one cannot be separated from the other.”

Id. at 367 (alteration in original). The defendant's conviction was upheld.

Lastly, in State v. Bartie, 24-897 (La. 2/6/25), 400 So.3d 896, which Defendant cites in his brief, the supreme court and this court agreed that the State failed to show the defendant committed second-degree murder by unlawfully distributing controlled dangerous substances to the victim who died after consuming them. This court reasoned,

these “gaps in the evidence” (the record did not demonstrate that the defendant had distributed an amount of methamphetamine to the victim that exceeded the amount she still had in her possession when she died as “the record is void of any evidence which quantified the amount provided to her,” and “more importantly, neither Bonin nor anyone else testified that the victim ingested the methamphetamine [the defendant] provided to her”), rendered the evidence insufficient to support the defendant's second degree murder conviction[.]

Id. at 904. Notably, the supreme court made another observation concerning the testimony of the State's expert witness, Dr. Tape:

The State's expert Dr. Tape answered “Yes, sir” to the following question posed by the prosecutor: “[I]n this case it is your medical opinion that the combination of these substances found in the patient's body in particular the methamphetamine and the fentanyl were the ultimately [sic] cause of death? (Emphasis added.)

Id. (alterations in original). Since La.R.S. 14:30.1(A)(3) required proof of the “direct cause” of death and since Dr. Tape testified that the victim died from a combination of substances, the supreme court determined the State's evidence was insufficient for two reasons: the State presented no proof that the defendant provided the victim with fentanyl, and no one asked whether consuming the methamphetamine alone was the direct cause of death.

Now, given the facts of this case, the cases above do not give adequate precedent. In Stone and LaBouef, causation is established when the fatal medical condition would have never arisen if the defendant had never shot or stabbed the victim. That is, in Stone, it was certain the stabbing led to the stroke that led to death even though the victim had a carotid occlusion; and in LaBouef, it was certain the shooting led to the clot that led to death even though the victim had prior health problems from inactivity. There was a direct causal relationship in these cases. Whereas, here, that is not the case. This is partly why Defendant suggests his connection to the victim's death is like that in Bartie, despite Bartie regarding a death through drug use. Ultimately, Bartie has no relevance to this matter, for Defendant's act did not have to be the “direct cause” of death. Rather, if Defendant's act either 1) hastened the termination of life, 2) contributed mediately or immediately to the death in a degree sufficient to be a clearly contributing cause, or 3) was a substantial factor in bringing about the forbidden result, there is sufficient causation. Matthews, 450 So.2d 644; Durio, 371 So.2d 1158. Additionally, and as this court noted in State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La. 2/22/06), 922 So.2d 517, 521), the supreme court cautioned that a Jackson review “does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.”

Here, not only did the jury find Defendant responsible for the death of Mr. Jones, but the trial court at sentencing also determined Defendant was involved in the beating which led to Mr. Jones's head injury. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we agree with the jury's finding. While Mr. Jones's head injury was caused by multiple assailants, four witnesses placed Defendant as one of the assailants who fought in the crowd as Mr. Jones's opponent. Moreover, Dr. Tape testified that the bullet wound caused considerable bleeding, and though the wound was non-fatal, the increase in heart rate and blood pressure from the gunshot wound clearly contributed to the death, and Dr. Tape testified that he knew “to a medical degree of certainty,” along with the trial court's finding that Defendant was involved in the beating which led to Mr. Jones's head injury.

Therefore, we find that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supports the jury's finding that the State carried its burden in proving Defendant guilty of manslaughter. Thus, this assignment of error is without merit, and Defendant's conviction is affirmed.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO:

In his second assignment of error, Defendant contends the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. Though the trial court noted an objection to the sentence, no motion to reconsider was filed. In State v. Suydam, 23-475, p. 19 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/28/24), 381 So.3d 867, 881–82 (alterations in original), writ denied, 24-441 (La. 11/20/24), 396 So.3d 69, the court addressed a general objection and the failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence:

“The failure to timely file a written motion to reconsider sentence or to orally urge any specific ground for reconsideration at sentencing precludes a defendant from objecting to the sentence imposed.” State v. Barling, 00-1241, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035, 1041, writ denied, 01-838 (La. 2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 881.1 serves as the basis for this proclamation and provides, in pertinent part:

A. (1) In felony cases, within thirty days following the imposition of sentence or within such longer period as the trial court may set at sentence, the state or the defendant may make or file a motion to reconsider sentence.

․

B. The motion shall be oral at the time of sentence or shall be in writing thereafter and shall set forth the specific grounds on which the motion is based.

․

E. Failure to make or file a motion to reconsider sentence or to include a specific ground upon which a motion to reconsider sentence may be based, including a claim of excessiveness, shall preclude the state or the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or from urging any ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review.

“In cases where courts have held that an oral objection alone is sufficient to preserve the issue for review, the oral objection contained the basis for the motion, such as excessiveness of sentence.” Barling, 779 So.2d at 1041–42. When there is no basis for the objection, the court is relegated to a bare claim of excessiveness. Id. at 1042.

As this court noted in State v. Pardue, 22-565 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/15/23), 359 So.3d 158, failure to raise an argument regarding consecutive sentences in a motion to reconsider sentence precludes review. This court specifically noted:

At no time did Defendant specifically allege in his motion that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences and he did not allege the trial court improperly considered the original charges of vehicular homicide before sentencing Defendant on the amended charges of negligent homicide. Furthermore, Defendant did not present any argument on these issues at the hearing on the motion to reconsider sentence. Therefore, pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 881. 1(E), we find this court is precluded from addressing Defendant's arguments.

Id. at 170.

Accordingly, Defendant's claim is barred, and his sentence is affirmed.

DECREE:

Defendant's conviction and sentence for the manslaughter of A'Martinez Jones are affirmed. However, we order that the minutes of sentencing be amended to correctly reflect the trial court's order that the ten-year sentence imposed for count two, principal to manslaughter, run consecutively to any other sentence(s) imposed, with the trial court providing Defendant, Derrionte Boyer, notice of said amendment to the minutes of sentencing.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In docket numbers 25-102, 25-103, and 25-104, Defendant asserts the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences with docket number 25-101. This issue will be addressed in the separate appeals pertaining to those docket numbers.

2.   The victim, A'Martinez Jones, is sometimes referred to by his nickname “Monty” in testimony and this record.

GARY J. ORTEGO JUDGE