STATE v. CITIZEN (2026)

Tregan Kenneth Citizen fatally shot Manuel Provost outside Cap's convenience store in Jennings, Louisiana. Citizen was indicted for second degree murder and the State invoked the firearm sentencing provision of La.Code Crim.P. art. 893.3(E). A jury unanimously convicted Citizen of manslaughter and found Citizen used or discharged a firearm when he shot Provost.

The trial court sentenced Citizen pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 893.3(E) to serve twenty years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Citizen filed a motion to reconsider his sentence based on excessiveness and the court's firearm enhancement jury question. The trial court denied his motion. He now appeals his conviction and sentence

Our review of the record shows no errors patent for us to consider. For reasons set forth below, we affirm Citizen's conviction and twenty-year sentence.

FACTS

Video evidence at trial showed Citizen was at Cap's, riding around on a bicycle, for some time before Provost arrived. He and Provost were calmly interacting before they exchanged words. Provost removed his shirt and lunged at Citizen, then backed up and raised his fists as if to fight. During that time, while a group of young men looked on, Citizen took a gun from his waistband, shot Provost, and fled the scene. Police found substances believed to be marijuana and cocaine on Provost but no weapons.

Rankevian Gloston knew both Citizen and Provost. He identified Citizen and Provost on the surveillance video. Gloston did not hear Citizen say anything to Provost to make him mad or see Citizen act aggressively toward, punch, or slap him. However, Gloston heard Provost tell Citizen “he was going to knock him out,” and Citizen told “him to leave him alon[e].”

Damarian Simon, Citizen's cousin, testified Provost approached him and Citizen, saying, “like, are y'all twins, like, bullying us type stuff[,]” and “Y'all look alike. Y'all ugly-type stuff.” Simon testified Provost told Citizen he would “knock him out, and he'll kill him with his bare hands.” However, Simon did not mention this threat to kill Citizen during his interview with police. Simon said he did not tell the whole truth during his interview because he did not trust the officer, but he told the truth at trial because he was under oath.

Javiel Palfrey, a juvenile at the time, testified he met Citizen at his house early on the morning of the incident. They rode their bicycles to Cap's to hang out. On their way, a “kind of grayish” car with four or five occupants, including Provost, stopped. The occupants of the car had words with Palfrey and Citizen. Palfrey testified, “It wasn't no friendly words, not no greeting words.” He said it seemed like the occupants of the car were trying to confront them. To Palfrey's knowledge, Citizen did not know Provost prior to this. Provost asked Palfrey for drugs, and Palfrey refused. According to Palfrey, those in the car “didn't like that I didn't want to give them no drugs, so they waived [sic] the gun in the backseat where they was four deep. Like I said, the car was full.” Palfrey said Provost waved the gun, and he was confident Citizen saw him wave it.

Later, Provost went to Cap's where Palfrey and Citizen were hanging out. Palfrey saw Provost remove his shirt before the shooting, but he did not see him reach for a gun. Palfrey ran from the scene after the shooting.

Like Simon, Palfrey failed to mention any threats by the victim during his initial interview with law enforcement. Simon and Palfrey were the only witnesses who testified Provost threatened Citizen's life or gave Citizen reason to believe he might be in imminent danger.

Dr. Christopher Tape performed Provost's autopsy. He found two gunshot wounds to Provost's head. Toxicology samples revealed Provost had 450 nanograms per milliliter of cocaine in his system. Dr. Tape testified the average quantity of cocaine in an impaired driver is 87 nanograms per milliliter, and the average quantity in someone admitted to the hospital for cocaine-related complaints is 260 nanograms per milliliter. He also testified cocaine could cause feelings of restlessness, increased risk taking, sleep disturbances, aggression, and violent actions. He could not determine whether Provost experienced any of those.

DISCUSSION

Citizen alleges the evidence was insufficient to support a manslaughter verdict. He contends the trial court erroneously imposed a firearm enhancement because the verdict failed to distinguish between “use” and “discharge” of the firearm. Finally, Citizen claims the trial court imposed an unconstitutionally excessive sentence.

Insufficient evidence

Citizen claims the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support the jury's verdict of manslaughter because he established a factual basis for self-defense and stand your ground defense. The State contends those who testified Provost threatened Citizen's or gave him reason to believe he was in imminent danger were not credible witnesses; their failure to mention any threats in their interviews with police undermined their credibility with the jury.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:31(A)(1) defines manslaughter in pertinent part as:

(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;

However, La.R.S. 14:20 addresses self-defense and the “stand your ground” defense:

A homicide is justifiable:

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

․

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.

The standard of review when a defendant claims self-defense involving a homicide is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not committed in self-defense or in the defense of others.” State v. Stockstill, 19-1235, pp. 4-5 (La. 10/1/20), 341 So.3d 502, 506. The State bears the burden to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not perpetrated in self-defense.” Id. at 4.

So, for Citizen to prevail in this assignment of error, he must show he reasonably believed his life was in danger and that it was necessary to kill Provost to protect himself. Likewise, he must show that the force he used was reasonable considering the force threatened against him.

This court addressed similar facts in State v. Mincey, 08-1315 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 14 So.3d 613, where the defendant and the victim exchanged words after the defendant bumped into the victim on his way to and from the bathroom at a club. Outside, the situation escalated. The victim's friends confronted the defendant, who said he had a gun. When the defendant's mother attempted to mediate the situation, the victim pushed her aside and attempted to punch the defendant. The victim was in mid-swing when the defendant shot him in the chest and fled.

On appeal, the defendant claimed the killing was justified because he had his back against the wall, and he was surrounded by the victim and the victim's two friends. Thus, his only means of escape was shooting the victim. This court disagreed, finding “the level of force [the defendant] used to defend himself was far beyond what was necessary under the circumstances.” Id. at 615.

Here, the surveillance video shown to the jury offers compelling evidence. Provost removed his shirt, punched Citizen, and backed up, indicating he was about to further engage in a fist fight. In response, Citizen fired three shots; two of them hit the victim in the head.

Any reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the State proved the shooting was not committed in self-defense. Additionally, any reasonable jury could have found that Citizen's use of deadly force was not a proportional or appropriate response to Provost's actions, and that Citizen's reaction was not justified under La.R.S. 14:20(C). This assignment of error lacks merit.

Imposition of firearm enhancement

Citizen contends the trial court erred in imposing the firearm sentencing enhancement when the jury verdict sheet failed to distinguish between “use” and “discharge” of a firearm. The jury verdict sheet asked, “Do you, the jury, find that a firearm was used or discharged by the defendant during the commission of the offense which resulted in bodily injury?” The jury checked “yes.”

We review this assignment of error under the abuse of discretion standard. State v. Rains, 12-615 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/12), 101 So.3d 593.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 893.3(E) provides:

[I]f the finder of fact has determined ․ that the defendant committed a felony with a firearm ․ and the crime is considered a violent felony ․ [and] the firearm is discharged during the commission of such a violent felony, the court shall impose a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than twenty years nor more than the maximum term of imprisonment provided for the underlying offense.

Manslaughter is a “violent felony” as defined by La.Code Crim.P. art. 893.3(E)(1)(b).

The jury found Citizen committed a violent felony with a firearm. Article 893.3(E) does not require the jury to determine whether Citizen used, as opposed to discharged, the firearm under these circumstances. Citizen shot Provost twice in the head and killed him. Clear and convincing evidence (for example, the video of the shooting) proves Citizen discharged the firearm. The trial court imposed the minimum sentence mandated by La.Code Crim.P. art. 893.3(E). See also State v. West, 01-969 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/12/01), 801 So.2d 619.

This assignment of error lacks merit.

Excessive sentence

We also review this assignment of error under the abuse of discretion standard. State v. Walker, 00-3200 (La. 10/12/01), 799 So.2d 461.

Citizen contends his twenty-year sentence is excessive considering he acted in self-defense when he shot Provost. We have already determined the evidence was sufficient to convict Citizen of manslaughter. Clear and convincing evidence shows he discharged a firearm during the commission of a violent felony. Twenty years is the minimum sentence allowed by La.Code Crim.P. art. 893.3(E). Citizen is not eligible for a lesser sentence under these circumstances.

DECREE

We affirm the judgment of the trial court finding Citizen guilty of manslaughter and sentencing him to twenty years at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, Judge