STATE v. LEDUFF (2026)

The State of Louisiana, through a grand jury indictment, charged defendant, Bryan K. Leduff, Jr., with second degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. Defendant pled not guilty. After a trial by jury, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. The trial court denied defendant's motion for new trial and motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. The trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Defendant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On March 26, 2015, at around 8:00 A.M., Charles Green arrived at his place of employment, New World International, an auto body parts shop located at 2615 North Street in Baton Rouge, where he discovered the dead body of a female in the parking lot and called 911. Mr. Green remained within approximately two feet of the body until officers of the Baton Rouge Police Department (BRPD) arrived, shortly after his 911 call. The decedent, later identified as Jemina Williams, was lying face down on the ground in the shop's parking lot, with visible gunshot wounds and her pants pulled down to her knees. She was surrounded by a pool of blood, brain matter, and bullet fragments. A condom wrapper and a silver bullet casing were also located within her immediate vicinity. Swabs were taken from Ms. Williams’ body and sent to the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab (LSPCL) to be processed along with the other evidentiary items the police discovered on the scene.

The BRPD subsequently received a DNA profile from the LSPCL, developed from items recovered at the scene, and entered it into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).¹ In late October 2016, the BRPD received a lead based on the DNA profile entered into CODIS, indicating that the defendant was a match. On October 26, 2016, pursuant to the execution of search warrants, the BRPD searched the defendant's apartment, collected a DNA swab from the defendant, and took the defendant into custody. The next day, the BRPD searched the defendant's rental car and recovered a Glock model 35, .40-caliber firearm. The firearm and DNA swab were submitted to the LSPCL.

The LSPCL concluded that the defendant could not be excluded as a contributor to the mixture of DNA obtained from the swab of the condom wrapper found at the scene. The defendant further could not be excluded as a contributor to the mixture of DNA obtained from swabs of Ms. Williams’ right palm and fingertips. The firearms examination showed that the shell casing located on the scene had been fired by the firearm found in the defendant's rental car.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In his sole assignment of error, the defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. He argues that the circumstantial evidence presented to prove the identity of the perpetrator failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. He specifically contends surveillance footage of the scene had no probative value and that there was no temporal or causal connection between the DNA evidence and the fatal shooting.

A conviction based on insufficient evidence cannot stand, as it violates due process. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV; La. Const. art. I, § 2. The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the State proved the essential elements of the crime and the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979); State v. Coleman, 2021-0870 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/8/22), 342 So.3d 7, 11, writ denied, 2022-00759 (La. 11/21/23), 373 So.3d 460; see also La. C.Cr.P. art. 821(B).

When a conviction is based on both direct and circumstantial evidence, the reviewing court must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence and the facts reasonably inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime. State v. Currie, 2020-0467 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/22/21), 321 So.3d 978, 982.

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that the factfinder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt. State v. Fair, 2024-0759 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/11/25), 417 So.3d 1166, 1174, writ denied, 2025-00933 (La. 1/21/26), 424 So.3d 1092, cert. denied, ––– S.Ct. ––––, 2026 WL 1855066 (2026).

When the key issue is the defendant's identity as the perpetrator, rather than whether the crime was committed, the State is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification. It is the role of the factfinder to weigh the credibility of the witnesses, and this Court will generally not second-guess those determinations. State v. Williams, 2016-0519 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/15/17), 2017 WL 4082077, at *2, writ granted in part on other grounds, denied in part, 2017-1753 (La. 6/15/18), 245 So.3d 1042 (per curiam).

Second degree murder is the killing of a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. La. R.S. 14:30.1(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). Such state of mind can be formed in an instant. State v. Thompson, 2025-0014 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/23/26), ––– So.3d ––––, 2026 WL 182149, at *2. Though intent is a question of fact, it need not be proven as a fact. It may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction. Specific intent may be proven by direct evidence, such as statements by a defendant, or by inference from circumstantial evidence, such as a defendant's actions or facts depicting the circumstances. Specific intent is an ultimate legal conclusion to be resolved by the factfinder. Specific intent to kill may be inferred from a defendant's act of pointing a gun and firing at a person. State v. Southall, 2022-0746 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/2/23), 369 So.3d 925, 930, writ denied, 2023-00875 (La. 2/6/24), 378 So.3d 750.

Sergeant Robert Hunt with the BRPD Digital Forensic Unit retrieved and downloaded the surveillance video footage from New World International for the relevant time period.² At approximately 3:15 A.M., the footage shows a vehicle pulling up at the scene where Ms. Williams’ body was discovered. Based on the appearance of the taillights of the vehicle that pulled up to the scene, activating the motion sensor and recording, the BRPD suspected it was a Pontiac sedan. The footage further shows an individual exiting the vehicle and repeatedly bending down to pick up what appeared to be small items from the ground in the parking lot, using a hand-held light source. The individual could only be described by his body-type due to the poor lighting and quality of the video. Detective Logan Collins with the BRPD, the lead detective in this case, testified that he believed the individual was “policing his brass,” meaning the individual was picking up his shell casings and cleaning the scene. While the individual could not be identified, as his face was not visible, Detective Collins noted his body-type was consistent with that of the defendant.

Near Ms. Williams’ body, Corporal Daryl Dyer with the BRPD observed a remaining .40-caliber Federal Smith & Wesson casing, surrounded by a puddle of blood, brain material, additional pieces of lead, and a condom wrapper. Detective Collins testified the instant incident appeared to be sexual in nature, based on the position of Ms. Williams’ body and the location of the condom wrapper.³ Ms. Williams’ body was photographed initially as she was found, face down, showing injuries to her wrist, skull, and back, and after she was turned over, showing injuries to her chest, stomach, and the right side of her temple. Ms. Williams had visible strands of white hair on her shirt, left shoulder, and right hand.

At the crime scene, Corporal Dyer collected several bullet fragments and swabbed the .40-caliber casing found near Ms. Williams’ body. He further took several swabs from Ms. Williams’ body, including her back, vaginal and rectal areas, hands, and fingertips. He sent the items to the LSPCL for further examination. Corporal Dyer testified Ms. Williams’ body appeared to have been dragged or moved based on the location of blood trails and brain matter that was separated from the position of her body. Officer Robert Blanchard, also with the BRPD at the time, was assigned to collect the condom wrapper. After processing, the evidence was sent to the LSPCL.

On March 27, 2015, Officer Matthew Kelly, a former crime scene investigator with the BRPD, attended the autopsy performed by Dr. Yen Van Vo, a forensic pathologist. Dr. Vo also performed a sexual assault examination, took swabs from various parts of Ms. Williams’ body, including her oral cavity, cheek, breasts, external and internal genitalia, anus, rectum, fingernail scrapings, clippings, and combings, and collected any hair or debris from her body. Dr. Vo testified Ms. Williams suffered five entrance gunshot wounds, including close range entrance wounds to the left side of her face, her left ear, and her right forearm, and indeterminate range gunshot wounds to the left side of her chest and the right side of her upper abdomen. In addition to the gunshot wounds, other injuries consisted of lacerations or tears on her right breast, and abrasions or scrapings on her back, left buttocks, right arm, left forearm, and left thigh. The cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds and manner of death was homicide.⁴

Officer Kelly collected bullet fragments and bullet jackets from Ms. Williams’ body and took swabs from her throat for a DNA reference sample. Corporal Andrew DeSalvo, also with the BRPD crime scene investigation division, collected the swabs and items from the physical recovery/sexual examination kit. All of the evidence was sent to the LSPCL.

Detective Collins noted the case went cold after the evidence was submitted to the LSPCL because there was no match to the foreign DNA profile (a profile that did not belong to Ms. Williams) developed by the lab. The foreign DNA profile was entered into CODIS, in hopes of receiving a match in the future. On or about October 26, 2016, the BRPD received an investigative lead, as they specifically learned that the defendant would match the foreign DNA profile from the condom wrapper and Ms. Williams’ hand. The BRPD obtained and executed search warrants for the defendant's apartment, rental vehicle, and DNA.

Sergeant Jonathan Medine, Lieutenant Mindy Stewart (both with the BRPD), and Detective Collins testified regarding the search of defendant's apartment and rental vehicle,⁵ and the discovery of a Pontiac at defendant's abandoned former residence. Specifically, during the search of the defendant's apartment, the officers observed and photographed two cats, each having white hair, one in a cat box in the front room and another in a back room. They further recovered .40-caliber Glock magazines, a loaded revolver, and a shotgun. DNA swabs from the defendant were collected before he was taken into custody.

The defendant's rental car, a Buick Regal, was transported to a BRPD secured storage facility, where it was searched. A backpack and black ski mask/skullcap were located on the front passenger seat. The backpack contained additional items, including the defendant's identification card and duct tape. Underneath the mask, a Glock model 35, .40-caliber firearm was recovered, loaded with .40-caliber live rounds. The BRPD processed the firearm for fingerprints, swabbed it for DNA, and ran its serial number through the ATF Trace Program and the CIU (Criminal Information Unit). The trace report showed the firearm was purchased by the defendant on September 10, 2011, and that it had not been reported stolen. The firearm was submitted to the LSPCL for ballistics analysis, including comparison to the shell casing found at the scene.

Regarding the Pontiac that was discovered at defendant's previous address, Detective Collins testified the house was located in an area that flooded in 2016 and contained abandoned houses. The Pontiac was parked in the driveway and appeared to be consistent with the vehicle in the surveillance footage shown pulling up to the scene where the offense occurred. Regarding the white strands of hair found on Ms. Williams’ body, on cross-examination, Detective Collins confirmed that although they were submitted to the LSPCL for testing, the lab returned them. On redirect examination, Detective Collins testified that he believed the white hairs consisted of animal hair, transferred to the defendant from his pet cats.

John Christopher Mai, a serologist at the LSPCL, screened the evidence submitted to the lab in this case. Phillip Simmers, a forensic DNA analyst at the LSPCL who was accepted as an expert in DNA analysis in this case, performed the analysis. In testing the evidence sent to the lab in March 2015, Mr. Simmers obtained DNA profiles from the condom wrapper and from the reference sample of Ms. Williams. Based on initial testing, the DNA profile from the condom wrapper was consistent with being a mixture of DNA from two individuals, one major contributor and one minor contributor. Ms. Williams could not be excluded as the major contributor to the mixture.⁶

Additional testing of the swab from the condom wrapper ⁷ produced a partial Y-STR DNA profile that was consistent with being a mixture of male DNA from at least three individuals, one major contributor and at least two minor contributors. Similarly, the Y-STR DNA profile obtained from the swabs from Ms. Williams’ right palm and fingertips was consistent with being a mixture of male DNA from at least three individuals, one major contributor and at least two minor contributors. The Y-STR DNA profile obtained from the swab from the condom wrapper and the Y-STR major contributor profile obtained from a swab from Ms. Williams’ right palm and fingertips were consistent with coming from the same source.

The final lab report included a reference sample from the defendant, received in October 2016 for comparison to the evidence in this case. Additional testing of the DNA profile obtained from the condom wrapper showed that the defendant could not be excluded as the minor contributor to the DNA mixture. The defendant and all of the males within his biological paternal lineage could not be excluded as the major contributor to the partial Y-STR DNA mixture from the condom wrapper. Further, the defendant and all of the males within his biological paternal lineage could not be excluded as the major contributor to Y-STR DNA mixture from Ms. Williams’ right palm and fingertips.

On cross-examination, Mr. Simmers confirmed that the white hairs collected from Ms. Williams’ body were not tested. While he did not personally make the decision to return the strands of hair without testing them, he noted the lab routinely tests samples that have the highest probability of containing foreign DNA. He noted only human hair can be tested and that the strands of hair must have a root attached to them. He further explained that if a hair is naturally shed by falling out, a root will not be present to allow the lab to obtain a DNA profile.

The final witness at trial, Rusty Day, a firearms examiner with the BRPD assigned to the LSPCL in the Firearms Unit, was accepted by the trial court as an expert in firearms examination. Mr. Day testified that he examined the Federal .40 Smith & Wesson cartridge case recovered at the scene and the model 35 .40-caliber Glock firearm, magazine, and bullets seized from the defendant's rental car. In describing the process of examination, Mr. Day testified that he fired the gun into a water tank to generate references to compare to the cartridge case in evidence, using a comparison microscope. Based on the unique marks within the firing pin impression (firing pin aperture sheer marks were observed on both sides of the firing pin impression), Mr. Day concluded that the cartridge case recovered from the scene was fired from the pistol in evidence. The bullet fragments submitted to the lab were not suitable for microscopic comparison.

The trier of fact is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. State v. Williams, 2001-0944 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/28/01), 804 So.2d 932, 939, writ denied, 2002-0399 (La. 2/14/03), 836 So.2d 135. The reviewing court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis has been suggested by the defendant which could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion; rather, the reviewing court evaluates the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determines whether the alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational factfinder could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jones, 2016-1502 (La. 1/30/18), 318 So.3d 678, 682 (per curiam).

In his appellate brief, defendant argues the video surveillance, DNA, and firearms evidence in this case are insufficient to identify him as the perpetrator. We disagree with defendant's assessment of the evidence. Initially, we note the DNA evidence placed defendant at the scene and established he had physical contact with Ms. Williams. Specifically, a condom wrapper was located close to Ms. Williams’ body, defendant's DNA was located on the condom wrapper, defendant's DNA was located on Ms. Williams’ hand and fingertips, Ms. Williams’ lower clothing had been pulled down, her body was badly bruised and scraped, and she sustained multiple gunshot injuries. The jury could have reasonably determined that Ms. Williams struggled with defendant, considering her bodily injuries and the location of defendant's DNA on her fingertips.

Moreover, the individual shown in the surveillance footage retrieved from New World International had the same body-type as defendant, and arrived in a vehicle consistent with the vehicle the police found in the driveway of defendant's former residence. While the apparent attempt to remove the casings from the scene was caught on video, the lone casing that remained at the scene, located near Ms. Williams’ body, was conclusively fired from a firearm registered in defendant's name and located in defendant's rental car. Based on our review of the evidence, we find the jury could have rationally concluded that defendant shot and killed Ms. Williams in connection with a sexual act. Under the facts and circumstances presented, we cannot say that the jury was irrational in determining the State negated any reasonable probability of misidentification in this case. See State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La. 11/29/06), 946 So.2d 654, 662.

Thus, we find the jury rationally rejected defendant's hypothesis of innocence. An appellate court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence for that of the factfinder and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to, and rationally rejected by, the jury. See State v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La. 1/21/09), 1 So.3d 417, 418 (per curiam). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the evidence presented by the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, all of the elements of second degree murder and the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the offense. Accordingly, we find no merit in the sole assignment of error.

PATENT ERROR REVIEW

Pursuant to Louisiana Code Criminal Procedure article 920(2), this Court routinely conducts a review of all appeals for error discoverable by mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence. See State v. Flot, 2024-0662 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/7/25), 423 So.3d 1240, 1254. After a careful review of the record, we have found one patent error.

The record reflects after imposing the sentence, the trial court advised the defendant he has “two years for any post conviction relief.” However, a defendant generally has two years “after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final” to seek post conviction relief. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A) (emphasis added). The prescriptive period does not initially begin to run until the judgment of conviction and sentence have both become final under La. C.Cr.P. art. 914 or La. C.Cr.P. art. 922.

Thus, the trial court failed to properly advise the defendant of the prescriptive period for seeking post conviction relief. However, the trial court's failure to properly advise the defendant has no bearing on the sentence and is not grounds to reverse the sentence or remand for resentencing. State v. Hollins, 2023-0785 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/19/24), 387 So.3d 641, 652, writ denied, 2024-00487 (La. 10/1/24), 393 So.3d 865. Out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of judicial economy, we instead advise defendant that La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 generally provides that no application for post conviction relief shall be considered if it is filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence have become final under the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. arts. 914 or 922. See Hollins, 387 So.3d at 652.

Accordingly, we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Combined DNA Index System is a database funded by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that stores DNA profiles created by federal, state, and local crime laboratories in the United States, which can be electronically searched to assist in the identification of crime suspects. See State v. Kenner, 2008-1361 (La. 8/27/08), 989 So.2d 765, 766 (per curiam).

2.   Mr. Green testified that the parking lot at New World International was only partially fenced in, and his video surveillance system, operated by motion sensor detection, frequently recorded activity such as people cutting across the parking lot or truckers parking there overnight.

3.   Detective Collins testified that the BRPD learned Ms. Williams lived a “high-risk lifestyle.” She had a history of narcotics use and prostitution, and had given birth several weeks before she was killed.

4.   A toxicology screen showed evidence of cocaine, methamphetamine, and alcohol in Ms. Williams’ blood. The sexual assault examination did not show any injuries to her genitalia. No seminal fluid was found in the rape kit.

5.   An Enterprise Car Rental agreement showed the defendant rented the vehicle on October 12, 2016.

6.   Mr. Simmers wrote a separate report regarding the testing of swabs collected from the external swabs in the sexual assault kit and other parts of Ms. Williams’ body. The DNA profile obtained from swabs of her left breast was consistent with the DNA profile obtained from her reference sample. As to be expected, there were similar conclusions throughout the report as to Ms. Williams’ DNA profile being consistent with profiles obtained from swabs taken from her body.

7.   Mr. Simmers testified that the condom wrapper was retested, as the minor profile developed from initial testing was incomplete.

GREENE, J.