STATE v. SMITH (2026)

This is a criminal matter. Appellant, Bobby Smith (“Defendant”), seeks reversal of his convictions and sentences for two counts of attempted manslaughter and one count of illegally discharging a firearm. Defendant contends that the testimony of a single witness, who was not at the scene of the crime and who purported to recognize him after watching video surveillance footage (sometimes hereinafter referred to as “surveillance video” or “surveillance footage”) of the incident, was evidentiarily insufficient to identify him as the perpetrator of the acts giving rise to his conviction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Defendant's convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 7, 2023, an Orleans Parish Grand Jury indicted Defendant, charging him with the following offenses:

Count One: Illegal discharge of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime on August 21, 2023, in violation of La. R.S. 14:94(F);

Count Two: Attempted second degree murder of T.J.1 on August 21, 2023, in violation of La. R.S. 14:27/30.1;

Count Three: Attempted second degree murder of William Bailey on August 21, 2023, in violation of La. R.S. 14:27/30.1;

Count Four: Second degree murder on August 27, 2023, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1;

Count Five: Obstruction of justice on August 27, 2023, in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1; and

Count Six: Attempted second degree murder on August 27, 2023, in violation of La. R.S. 14:27/30.1.

Counts one through three of the indictment emanated from a shooting event that occurred on August 21, 2023, in which Defendant was accused of shooting into an apartment where William Bailey (“Mr. Bailey”) resided and was present with his son on that date. Counts four through six were charged in connection with a separate shooting event that occurred in the 2700 block of Poydras Street on August 27, 2023. On December 14, 2023, Defendant was arraigned and entered not guilty pleas to all six counts. The case was tried before a jury from October 7 through October 9, 2025. A unanimous jury found Defendant guilty as charged on count one, and guilty of the responsive verdict of attempted manslaughter on counts two and three,² but found him not guilty on counts four through six. Because Defendant was acquitted of the crimes associated with the second shooting event, we will limit our discussion to the facts surrounding the first incident.

At trial, the following relevant testimony was adduced:

Detective Thomas Wiltz

New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) Detective Thomas Wiltz (“Det. Wiltz”) testified that he conducted an investigation in connection with a report that gunshots had been fired on August 21, 2023. When he, along with other officers, went to the crime scene located at 2221 Magic Street, New Orleans, La., they discovered shell casings, a bullet fragment, and “strike marks on a door that was struck by gunfire.” They also obtained surveillance footage of the area from several different sources. That surveillance video was introduced and admitted into evidence in globo,³ without objection, by Appellee, the State of Louisiana (the “State”), as State exhibit 1, encompassing 1.1 through 1.18. Thereafter, State exhibit 2, a compilation of excerpts from the surveillance video was admitted, without objection, and published to the jury. Det. Wiltz explained that after reviewing the surveillance footage, he was able to obtain a close up shot of a license plate. Upon running a search of the license plate number, Det. Wiltz learned that the vehicle was registered to Augustine Smith (“Ms. Smith”), Defendant's mother.

Taylor Austin

Taylor Austin (“Ms. Austin”), a crime scene investigator with the NOPD, took photographs of the crime scene located at 2221 Magic Street. As evidenced by State exhibit 4, photographs of the crime scene, Ms. Austin documented and authenticated at trial evidence reflecting the bullets fired on August 21, 2023. Ms. Austin also documented, via her photographs, damages to the property caused by the shooting.

Detective Maurice Stewart

NOPD Homicide Detective Stewart (“Det. Stewart”) was assigned to investigate the homicide shooting, which occurred in the 2700 block of Poydras Street on August 27, 2023. While investigating the matter, in addition to reviewing surveillance footage of that incident, Det. Stewart also reviewed surveillance video from 2221 Magic Street. This footage was introduced into evidence as State exhibit 20. Det. Stewart confirmed that Mr. Bailey lived at the Magic Street residence at the time of the shooting on August 21, 2023.

Colby Patterson

Colby Patterson (“Ms. Patterson”) testified that at the time of the shooting incidents, she had been in a relationship with Mr. Bailey for approximately seven years. They shared two young children and lived together at 2221 Magic Street. According to Ms. Patterson, Mr. Bailey had known Defendant for mostly his whole life, and she had known him for about seven years during the course of her relationship with Mr. Bailey. Ms. Patterson stated that she reported the August 21, 2023 shooting to the NOPD the following day, explaining that she had been at work when the shots were fired into her home. She told the police that “Bobby [Defendant] shot at my house.” At this point in her testimony, the Magic Street surveillance footage (State exhibit 1.7) was shown to Ms. Patterson. A review of the surveillance footage clearly shows the following: a car being driven to the house; a black male exiting the vehicle and walking around the property; and this same black male ultimately firing shots at the house. The surveillance video, however, does not reveal the perpetrator's face. Upon viewing this surveillance footage, Ms. Patterson identified the perpetrator as Defendant. When asked to how she knew it was Defendant given that the perpetrator's face cannot be discerned, Ms. Patterson explained that she recognized the car he was driving, his build, his gait and his hair.

ERRORS PATENT

Appellate courts review all criminal appeal records for the existence of a patent error. An error patent is one “that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2). A review of the record revealed no errors patent.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues, in his single assignment of error, that as the sole witness to testify to Defendant's identity, Ms. Patterson's identification by means of surveillance footage of Defendant as the perpetrator of counts 1, 2 and 3 was evidentiarily insufficient for the State to prove his identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Appellate courts review the sufficiency of evidence used to support a conviction under the Jackson standard.” State v. Steele, 24-0452, p. 16 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/12/25), 424 So.3d 73, 84 writ denied 25-00882 (La. 11/25/25); 421 So.3d 538 (quoting State v. Riley, 23-0040, p. 12 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/31/23), 372 So.3d 77, 86). “Under Jackson ‘the relevant question 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 beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. at pp. 16-17, 424 So.3d at 84. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). “The principal [criterion] of a Jackson ․ review is rationality.” Id. at p. 17, 424 So.3d at 84 (quoting State v. Dukes, 19-0172, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/2/19), 281 So.3d 745, 752). “As such, ‘irrational decisions to convict will be overturned, rational decisions to convict will be upheld, and the actual fact finder's discretion will be impinged upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Alexis, 14-0327, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/3/14), 157 So.3d 775, 778).

In State v. Butler, 24-0061 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/30/24), 407 So.3d 744, this Court was similarly faced with a claim that a single witness's identification testimony was insufficient to prove the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the crime. In finding that evidence sufficient, the Court reasoned:

In discussing the issue of identification, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “when the key issue is the defendant's identity as the perpetrator, rather than whether the crime was committed, the [S]tate is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification.” [State v. Weary, 03-3067, p. 18 (La. 4/24/06), 931 So.2d 297, 311] (first citing State v. Neal, [ ]00-0674, p. 11 (La. 6/29/01), 796 So.2d 649, 658; and then citing State v. Smith, 430 So.2d 31, 45 (La. 1983)). However, the Louisiana Supreme Court has further held that “[a] positive identification by only one witness is sufficient to support a conviction.” Id. (first citing Neal, [ ]00-0674, p. 11, 796 So.2d at 658; and then citing State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1311 (La. 1988)). That is, if the trier of fact made a credibility determination and believed the testimony of a single witness, then that witness’ testimony alone is sufficient for the district court to convict and for the appellate court to affirm the conviction. State v. Wells, [ ]10-1338, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/30/11), 64 So.3d 303, 306 (citing State v. White, 28,095, p. 14 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/8/96), 674 So.2d 1018, 1027).

Butler, 24-0061, pp. 12-13, 407 So.3d at 751. See also State v. Wolfe, 98-0345, p. 9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/21/99), 738 So.2d 1093, 1098-99 (wherein this Court opined that a single witness's testimony was sufficient to satisfy the State's burden of proving the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the charged crime).

In his brief to this Court, Defendant argues that Ms. Patterson's identification of him, based upon her review of surveillance video, could not have convinced reasonable jurors that Defendant was the assailant. We disagree. In this case, Ms. Patterson testified that she was familiar with Defendant, having been acquainted with him for approximately seven years through her relationship with William Bailey, who knew Defendant practically his whole life. Ms. Patterson further testified that she recognized Defendant from the surveillance video because she knew “his build,” knew how he walked and knew his hair. Further, she recognized the car he was driving, stating: “I know that car, that's the car he's always driving, his mom[’s] car.”

We addressed this issue in State v. Berniard, where we held that the identification by two witnesses using surveillance video was sufficient to determine the factual issue of whether the defendant in that case was the actual shooter because their identification “was rationally based on their perceptions and familiarity with [the] defendant.” 14-0341, p. 30 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/4/15), 163 So.3d 71, 90. See also State v. Jefferson, 04-1960, p. 26 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/21/05), 922 So.2d 577, 596-97 (where this Court found that two previous interactions by a detective with a witness was sufficient for the detective to identify the witness's voice on a 911 audio recording because “La. C.E. art. 701 permits a lay witness to testify in the form of opinions or inferences as long as those opinions or inferences satisfy two requirements: (i) the opinions are rationally based on the perception of the witness, and (ii) they are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.”).

Accordingly, we find that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes associated with counts one through three of the indictment. This argument is unpersuasive.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Defendant's convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   T.J. is described as an adult victim. Under the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. art. 473, a victim, regardless of age, may be identified by his or her initials. (“In stating any name of a victim it is sufficient to state ․ initials of a given name or names.”)

2.   Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 814(A)(4) provides:A. The only responsive verdicts which may be rendered when the indictment charges the following offenses are:* * *4. Attempted Second Degree Murder:Guilty.Guilty of attempted manslaughter.Guilty of aggravated battery.Guilty of aggravated assault with a firearm.Not guilty.

3.   Black's Law Dictionary defines in globo to mean, “As an undivided whole rather than separately.” In globo, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) available at Westlaw.

Judge Paula A. Brown