STATE v. LABRANCH (2026)

Defendant/Appellant, Armand J. LaBranch (hereinafter “Mr. LaBranch”) seeks review of his conviction and sentence for one count of obstruction of justice. After consideration of the record before this Court and the applicable law, we affirm Mr. LaBranch's conviction and sentence for obstruction of justice.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 2, 2022, Mr. LaBranch assisted Dantrell Davenport (hereinafter “Ms. Davenport”) with the purchase of a car from a car auction. Several days later, the car began having mechanical problems. Mr. LaBranch agreed to help Ms. Davenport with the repairs, including purchasing parts for the car and paying for towing the vehicle to a mechanic's shop. On March 11, 2022, Mr. LaBranch went to Ms. Davenport's home, where he encountered her boyfriend, Derwin Bernard (hereinafter “Mr. Bernard”). While there, Mr. Bernard pulled out a gun and demanded that Mr. LaBranch return Ms. Davenport's money. After the confrontation was diffused by Ms. Davenport, Mr. LaBranch offered to pay her one thousand dollars towards repairing the car.

A few weeks later, Mr. LaBranch was visiting a long-time friend, Melvin Patterson (hereinafter “Mr. Patterson”), who resided in the home which was owned by Pierre Leufray (hereinafter “Mr. Leufray”). As Mr. LaBranch was walking up the front porch stairs, he noticed Mr. Bernard running towards him, with what appeared to be a gun in his waistband, and yelling, “give me the f**king girl's money.” Mr. LaBranch responded by pulling out a gun, shooting Mr. Bernard twice. Mr. LaBranch immediately fled the scene. Emergency medical services were the first to arrive on scene and rendered aid to Mr. Bernard. As the paramedics lifted him onto the gurney, a gun fell from his body. Mr. Bernard was transported to University Medical Center for treatment but ultimately did not survive his injuries.

The Investigation

Shortly after the shooting, the New Orleans Police Department arrived and processed the scene for evidence. While surveying the area, they located Mr. Bernard's gun on the sidewalk, along with a baseball cap, cellphone, and a plastic bag.¹ The investigators canvassed the area for witnesses and located multiple residential surveillance cameras that appeared to be facing the location where the shooting occurred. After processing the scene, investigators were unable to locate any other guns and did not find any fired gun casings that could further assist the investigation.

In the weeks to follow, lead investigator, Detective Leonard Bendy (hereinafter “Detective Bendy”), executed multiple search warrants in an effort to recover video footage of the incident. On March 26, 2022, a search warrant was issued for three Ring doorbell cameras near the scene. The search was for footage from cameras that were believed to be facing in the direction of the shooting. Immediately following the Ring camera search warrant, Detective Bendy sought four additional search warrants for Digital Video Recorders (DVR), located at four separate properties in the area, including the DVR located at Mr. Patterson's residence. Detective Bendy also met with Mr. Bernard's mother, Chalantha Kiper, who informed him that although she had not watched it, she had been told that there was a video “floating around” of the shooting. She provided him with Ms. Davenport's phone number and suggested obtaining more information from her.

Ms. Davenport met with Detective Bendy and provided the video footage of the shooting. She explained that she believed it was captured by a surveillance camera next door to Mr. Patterson's residence. Ms. Davenport stated that she was unaware of the origin of the video but knew that it had been circulating amongst several people. Ms. Davenport named Mr. LaBranch as the shooter from the video and identified him in a photographic line-up. On April 11, 2022, detectives met Mr. Leufray for an interview. After viewing the video with detectives, Mr. Leufray also named Mr. LaBranch as the shooter and identified him in a photographic lineup. During their interviews, both Ms. Davenport and Mr. Leufray provided detectives with Mr. LaBranch's cell phone number, which was ultimately used to locate him.²

Based upon Detective Bendy's investigation, an arrest warrant was issued for Mr. LaBranch, leading to his arrest at his home on May 5, 2022. While Mr. LaBranch was being transported to the police station for questioning, the detectives also executed a search warrant for his home. The search returned a Samsung cell phone, a Coolpad smartphone and a revolver, which was determined not to be the gun used to shoot Mr. Bernard.³ During questioning, Mr. LaBranch told Detective Bendy that he wanted to provide all of the details of the incident; however, he invoked his constitutional right to counsel before doing so. Detective Bendy ended the questioning and advised Mr. LaBranch to contact him once he obtained counsel. Mr. LaBranch had no further communications with the police. Detective Bendy obtained a search warrant for Mr. LaBranch's cell phone number, requesting call records, location information, and all text and/or MMS messages. Despite the efforts of the ongoing investigation, the gun used to shoot Mr. Bernard was never recovered.

The Trial

Mr. LaBranch was charged with one count of second degree murder in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 and one count of obstruction of justice in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1. He pled not guilty to both charges. Prior to trial, Mr. LaBranch, through counsel, orally reserved his right to raise the defense of self-defense.⁴

During the four day trial, a forensic pathologist, Dr. Erin O'Sullivan (hereinafter, “Dr. O'Sullivan”), testified that she conducted an autopsy of Mr. Bernard. The findings of the autopsy revealed that Mr. Bernard was shot twice, with one bullet grazing his forehead and the other causing the fatal blow to the back of his head. Dr. O'Sullivan advised that she was also able to recover four bullet fragments. The firearms and ballistics expert, Kenneth Leary (hereinafter “Mr. Leary”), testified that based on the four bullet fragments recovered from the autopsy, the gun used to shoot Mr. Bernard was likely one of two possible gun types.  ⁵ However, without the actual gun for comparison, he could not conclusively determine the specific type of gun and therefore his examination was incomplete.

The State presented the video of the shooting provided by Ms. Davenport to the jury. The footage showed Mr. LaBranch shooting Mr. Bernard and immediately leaving the scene with the gun. Mr. LaBranch testified that on the day of the incident, he saw Mr. Bernard “pulling the gun out of his waistband,” and that he was “scared for [his] life,” which led to him shooting Mr. Bernard. Mr. LaBranch admitted that he left the scene after the shooting but could not “recall” what he did with the gun. He explained that following the incident, he was so distraught and disoriented that he got lost trying to drive to his daughter's house; a route that he had taken “a hundred times” before. He further asserted that due to this state of mind, he could not recall what he did with the gun after the shooting. The jury also heard testimony from the crime scene investigator, the FBI special agent, Ms. Davenport, Mr. Patterson, and Mr. Leufray.⁶

The jury acquitted Mr. LaBranch of second degree murder and found him guilty as charged for obstruction of justice. In response, Mr. LaBranch filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On July 11, 2025, the district court denied both post-trial motions and, without delay, imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment at hard labor, with five years suspended and three years of active probation. This appeal followed.

ERRORS PATENT REVIEW

In accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 920, this Court reviews all criminal appeals for errors patent on the face of the record. An error patent is defined as 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 reveals no errors patent in this case.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. LaBranch asserts the following sole assignment of error:

The evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice because the State must prove the offender acted with the specific intent to distort a criminal investigation. The State's case was based solely upon the fact that law enforcement was unable to recover the firearm used in a justifiable homicide, and absent proof that the [defendant] possessed the specific intent to distort the investigation, the conviction cannot stand.

This Court has previously set forth the applicable standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence:

“The principal criteria of a Jackson v. Virginia review is rationality.” State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La. 1988). Upon review of the record as a whole, if rational triers of fact could disagree as to the interpretation of the evidence, the rational trier's view of all the evidence must be adopted. Id.; State v. Egana, 97-0318, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/3/97), 703 So.2d 223, 228. It is not the role of the appellate court to assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. State v. Scott, 2012-1603 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/23/13), 131 So.3d 501,508, writ denied, 2014-0221 (La. 8/25/14), 147 So.3d 701. “Credibility determinations, as well as the weight to be attributed to the evidence, are soundly within the province of the trier of fact.” Id. “Moreover, conflicting testimony as to factual matters is a question of weight of the evidence, not sufficiency. Such a determination rests solely with the trier of fact, who may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness.” Id. “Absent internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, a single witness’ testimony, if believed by the fact finder, is sufficient to support a factual conclusion.” State v. Leonard, 2018-0142 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/26/18), 262 So.3d 378, 385-386, writ denied, 2019-0209 (La. 4/15/19).

State v. Bradley, 2018-0734, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/15/19), 272 So.3d 94, 97-98. In order to remain analogous to that of the trier of fact, this Court must review the record as a whole. State v. Wilson, 2022-0346, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/9/22), 353 So.3d 389, 393 (citation omitted). As such, “a reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” State v. Dixon, 2025-0105, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/10/25), 430 So.3d 472, 479 (quoting State v. Huckabay, 2000-1082, p. 32, (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/6/02), 809 So.2d 1093, 1111) (citation omitted).

The essential elements for sufficiency of the evidence are satisfied where every reasonable hypothesis of innocence has been excluded. See La. R.S. 15:438. This statutory requirement “works with the Jackson constitutional sufficiency test to evaluate whether all evidence, direct and circumstantial, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a rational jury.”⁷ State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La. 6/29/01), 796 So.2d 649, 657 (citations omitted). “When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, such evidence must consist of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.” State v. Brown, 2012-0626, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/10/13), 115 So.3d 564, 571 (citation omitted). With these principles in mind, we now analyze whether the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Mr. LaBranch of obstruction of justice.

Mr. LaBranch concedes that he left the scene with the gun he used to shoot Mr. Bernard. However, he maintains that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he removed the gun with the specific intent to distort the criminal investigation. La. R.S. 14:130.1 defines obstruction of justice and provides, in pertinent part:

A. The crime of obstruction of justice is any of the following acts when committed with the knowledge that such act has, reasonably may, or will affect an actual or potential present, past, or future criminal proceeding as described in this Section:

(1) Tampering with evidence with the specific intent of distorting the results of any criminal investigation or proceeding which may reasonably prove relevant to a criminal investigation or proceeding. Tampering with evidence shall include the intentional alteration, movement, removal, or addition of any object or substance either:

(a) At the location of any incident which the perpetrator knows or has good reason to believe will be the subject of any investigation by state, local, or United States law enforcement officers; or

(b) At the location of storage, transfer, or place of review of any such evidence.

La. R.S. 14:130.1(A)(1)(a-b). Obstruction of justice contains the element of specific intent. Specific intent is interpreted as the “state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the [defendant] actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act.” La. R.S. 14:10(1). When considering if the defendant possessed the specific intent to commit obstruction of justice, it “need not be proven as fact but may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and the actions of [the] defendant.” State v. Harvey, 2021-0730, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/25/22), 345 So.3d 1043, 1050. “To support a conviction [for obstruction of justice], the State must prove more than the mere removal of evidence from a crime scene; the State must also prove that such removal was done with ‘the specific intent of distorting the results of any criminal investigation or proceeding that may reasonably prove relevant to a criminal investigation or proceeding.’ ” State v. Scott, 2023-0022, p. 15 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/30/23), 372 So.3d 42, 54 (citing La. R.S. 14:130.1(A)(1)).

In the case sub judice, Mr. LaBranch argues that the State's failure to locate the gun is insufficient proof to support a conviction for obstruction of justice because it failed to prove that he specifically intended to distort the investigation. Conversely, the State maintains that the evidence was sufficient to convict Mr. LaBranch of obstruction of justice based on the evidence presented to the jury. We agree with the State.

The video footage shows Mr. LaBranch leaving the scene with the gun, and he conceded that he fled the scene after the shooting. However, Mr. LaBranch testified that he was so disoriented afterwards that he does not recall what happened to the gun after he fled. He confirmed that he did not call the police to report the shooting because of his state of mind nor did he make himself available to the police after contacting his attorney. The State also points to Detective Bendy's testimony as to the extensive efforts undertaken to identify the shooter and establish a case for presentation to the grand jury. He explained the investigation, which included processing the crime scene, interviewing witnesses and executing multiple search warrants. This investigation resulted in the recovery of surveillance footage, cell-tower location data used to locate Mr. LaBranch and evidence from Mr. LaBranch's home. Mr. Leary testified that although he was able to examine the four bullet fragments from the autopsy, he was not able to conduct a thorough examination without the gun used or gun casings available for comparison.⁸ The State maintains that without the recovery of the gun used, in addition to not being able to locate Mr. LaBranch until almost a month later and the lack of physical evidence found at the scene, the timeliness and efficacy of their investigation was distorted by not being able to identify common specifications associated with the gun used to shoot Mr. Bernard. Thus, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that Mr. LaBranch's actions amounted to obstruction of justice.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find the jury rationally rejected Mr. LaBranch's defense that he did not specifically intend to distort the investigation. The jury viewed the video recording of Mr. LaBranch immediately fleeing the scene of the shooting with the gun; he did not call the police to report the shooting; he avoided police for almost a month until arrested pursuant to a warrant; and he did not follow-up with Detective Bendy to provide pertinent details leading up to, during and after the incident. Based on the cumulation of facts and circumstances, a rational trier of fact could infer, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. LaBranch possessed the specific intent to distort the police investigation by removing the gun from the scene. See State v. Jefferson, 2024-0724, pp. 15-16 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/30/25), 415 So.3d 989, 1000-01 (citing State v. Bethley, 2022-0849, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/21/23), 368 So.3d 1148, 1156) (finding where the defendant fled the scene with the gun, but testified that he did not remember possessing a firearm, it was reasonable to infer that the removal of a weapon from the scene of the shooting is sufficient to support an obstruction of justice conviction) (citation omitted).

Based on the foregoing, we find the trier of fact was presented with sufficient evidence to determine that Mr. LaBranch committed the crime of obstruction of justice. See State v. Henry, 2025-0069, p. 22 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/29/25), 426 So.3d 702, 718 (quoting State v. Walter, 2024-0420, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/29/25), 414 So.3d 1009, 1016-17). (“An appellate court's ‘role is not to decide whether we would have reached the same conclusion, but rather to determine whether the [jury's] judgment was reasonable based on the record as a whole.’ ”) (citation omitted). Thus, we find no merit to Mr. LaBranch's assignment of error.

DECREE

Mr. LaBranch's conviction and sentence for obstruction of justice are affirmed.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   The gun found on the scene was identified, by its serial number, as belonging to Mr. Bernard.

2.   After executing the search warrant for the cell phone carrier, FBI special agents retrieved live cell-tower location data, which led the police to Mr. LaBranch's home.

3.   During the course of the investigation, it was determined that the revolver found at Mr. LaBranch's home belonged to his daughter.

4.   As of August 1, 2024, La. C.Cr.P. art. 390(B) provides in pertinent part that “[a]ny defendant intending to assert the justification of self-defense․shall provide written notice to the district attorney within ten days after the state has moved for discovery under Article 724.”

5.   The examination of the four bullet fragments by the firearms and ballistics expert determined that the gun used in the shooting was possibly a revolver or a semi-automatic pistol.

6.   Mr. Bernard's mother, Chalantha Kiper, also testified at trial.

7.   La. R.S. 15:438 provides, “The rule as to circumstantial evidence is: assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”

8.   The State stipulated that the only gun found at the crime scene belonged to Mr. Bernard.

Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase