STATE of Louisiana v. Douglas K. CRADDOCK.Prior report: La.App., 62 So.3d 791. In re Craddock, Douglas K.;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 23862; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1473.
In any event, if believed, the testimony of the victim alone, with no other evidence, is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. SeeState v. Craddock, 2010-1473 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 795, writ denied, 2011-0862 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. Also, if believed, and in the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, the testimony of one witness is sufficient to support a factual conclusion.
The first circuit affirmed a twenty-five-year sentence for an armed robbery committed with an unloaded BB gun. State v. Craddock, 10-1473 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, writ denied, 11-862 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. The second circuit affirmed a thirty-year sentence for an armed robbery committed with an unloaded gun.
The victim's testimony alone was sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. SeeState v. Craddock, 2010-1473 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 795, writ denied, 2011-0862 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. An appellate court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of the fact finder and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to, and rationally rejected by, the jury. SeeState v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La. 1/21/09), 1 So.3d 417, 418 (per curiam).
If believed, the testimony of the victim alone, with no other evidence, is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. SeeState v. Craddock, 2010-1473 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 795, writ denied, 2011-0862 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. We cannot say that the jury's determination was irrational under the facts and circumstances presented to it.
If believed, the testimony of the victim alone, with no other evidence, is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. See State v. Craddock, 10–1473 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 795, writ denied, 11–0862 (La.10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. Also, if believed, and in the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, the testimony of one witness is sufficient to support a factual conclusion. State v. Higgins, 03–1980 (La.4/1/05), 898 So.2d 1219, 1226, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 883, 126 S.Ct. 182, 163 L.Ed.2d 187 (2005).
We note that the finder of fact may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness and that the victim's testimony alone is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. State v. Craddock, 10–1473 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, writ denied,11–862 (La.10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. In addition to the victim's testimony, several witnesses, including the defendant, corroborated that the defendant aggressively approached Mr. Melancon, that he stated something to the effect of “give it up,” and that Mr. Melancon threw his phone at the defendant before running away.
Even an artificial gun constitutes a dangerous weapon when the interaction between the offender and the victim created a highly charged atmosphere whereby there was a danger of serious bodily harm resulting from the victim's fear for his life. SeeState v. Craddock, 2010-1473, p. 5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 794, writ denied, 2011-0862 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. See alsoState v. Cittadino, 628 So.2d 251, 255 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1993) (where a victim's belief that a toy pistol pointed at her face was a real gun and that the defendant was going to kill her was sufficient to support a conviction for armed robbery), A lay witness may testify as to opinions rationally based on his perception.
A sentence is considered constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense or is nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. State v. Craddock, 2010-1473, pp. 6-7 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 795-796, writ denied, 2011-0862 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. The trial court has. great discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits, and such a sentence will not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Hurst, 99-2868, pp. 10-11 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/3/00), 797 So.2d 75, 83, writ denied, 2000-3053 (La. 10/5/01), 798 So.2d 962. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 894.1 sets forth the factors for the trial court to consider when imposing sentence.
The burden of proving disqualification of an attorney rests on the party making the challenge. Walker v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Dev., supra; State v. Craddock, 2010–1473 (La.App. 1st Cir.3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 797, writ denied,2011–0862 (La.10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. A disqualification inquiry, particularly when instigated by an opponent, presents a palpable risk of unfairly denying a party the counsel of his choosing.