Background
Fatonious Darrell Ballard was convicted of second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon after Dwight Green was shot eight times in the back while cooking at a community barbecue outside a Shreveport store. Ballard was also shot at the scene. The trial court imposed mandatory life without benefits for murder and 20 years without benefits for the firearm offense, to run concurrently.
The State presented evidence that Ballard had been near Green before the shooting and walked away holding a black gun immediately afterward. A Glock 43X recovered the next day from a trash can was linked by ballistics to cartridge casings near Green’s body; Ballard’s DNA was on its grip and trigger. In a jail call, Ballard discussed a gun that had been taken from him and expressed concern that police had recovered it.
The Court’s Holding
The Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed both convictions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court held that a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ballard shot Green. The physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, video evidence, and Ballard’s jail call sufficiently negated reasonable hypotheses of misidentification despite inconsistencies in some witness accounts and an unknown major DNA contributor on the gun.
The court also held that the evidence established Ballard’s possession of a firearm, including his DNA on the Glock, testimony that he carried a gun after the shooting, and his jail-call statements. It rejected his excessive-sentence claim, holding that the concurrent 20-year firearm sentence was not constitutionally excessive given his use of the firearm to shoot Green eight times. The court deemed Ballard’s Confrontation Clause claim abandoned because he did not fully brief it.
Key Takeaways
- Circumstantial and direct evidence supported the jury’s finding that Ballard was the shooter.
- DNA evidence, witness testimony, and the defendant’s own jail call supported the firearm-possession conviction.
- A general motion to reconsider sentence preserved only constitutional-excessiveness review, not a claim of inadequate sentencing reasons.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deference Louisiana appellate courts give to jury credibility determinations in sufficiency challenges, particularly where the State’s proof combines forensic evidence, circumstantial evidence, and inculpatory statements.
It also underscores that appellants must fully brief each assignment of error and specify grounds in a motion to reconsider sentence to preserve broader sentencing arguments.