State v. Bethley

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Ramirez-Delgado

    No. 24-KA-119 (La. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2024)

    In State v. Bethley, 22-849 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/21/23), 368 So.3d 1148, 1155, writ denied, 23-965 (La. 1/17/24), 377 So.3d 242, the defendant, during his testimony, when questioned about the whereabouts of the firearm, responded evasively to the question and never provided a direct answer. The court found this evidence reasonable to infer that defendant left the scene of an incident, with the firearm, that he knew it would be the subject of a criminal investigation.

  2. State v. Loggins

    No. 23-KA-519 (La. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2024)

    We find that there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of obstruction of justice based on his removal of and disposal of the gun. In State v. Bethley, 22-849 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/21/23), 368 So.3d 1148, 1155, writ denied, 23-965 (La. 1/17/24), 377 So.3d 242, the defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of obstruction of justice because the State could not definitively prove that he removed the firearm from the crime scene.

  3. State v. Robinson

    No. 2023-KA-0058 (La. Ct. App. Sep. 4, 2024)

    State v. Powell, 15-0218, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/28/15), 179 So.3d 721, 728, (citing State v. Jones, 07-1052, p. 10 (La. 6/3/08), 983 So.2d at 101). This Court has found that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice when a Defendant "left the scene of the crime with the firearm used in the commission of the crime." State v. Bethley, 22-0849, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/21/23), 368 So.3d 1148, 1156, writ denied, 23-00965 (La. 1/17/24), 377 So.3d 242. Additionally, the evidence established that the "firearm was not located at the scene of the crime and never recovered by law enforcement."

  4. State v. Mantequilla

    No. 23-KA-335 (La. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2024)

    See also State v. Bethley, 22-849 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/21/23), 368 So.3d 1148, 1155, writ denied, 23-965 (La. 1/17/24), 377 So.3d 242 (where the gun was not located at the scene of the crime and was never found by law enforcement, but the defendant testified he left the scene with the gun).

  5. State v. Richardson

    390 So. 3d 851 (La. Ct. App. 2024)

    The specific intent to commit obstruction of justice does not need to be proven as a fact; instead, specific intent may be inferred from the defendant’s actions and the circumstances. State v. Bethley, 2022-0849, pp. 9-10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/21/23), 368 So.3d 1148, 1156, writ denied, 2023-00965 (La. 1/17/24), 377 So.3d 242 (quoting 16State v. Harvey, 2021-0730, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/25/22), 345 So.3d 1043, 1050, writ denied, 2022-00953 (La. 9/20/22), 346 So.3d 803). A review of Ms. Rivarde’s testimony supports that Defendant retrieved a gun from the church’s garbage and fled the scene after Ms. Rivarde, while in Defendant’s presence, had called 911 to report the murder and asked the police to come to the church.

  6. State v. Lehmann

    385 So. 3d 268 (La. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    . However, "[a] person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he 19desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict." La. R.S. 14:21; See also State v. Bethley, 2022-0849, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/21/23), 368 So.3d 1148, 1154. [6] "When a defendant asserts that he acted in self-defense in a homicide case, it is settled law that the state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense."