Jeannine Lejeune/Crowley Post-Signal
Daniel Prince’s attempt at an appeal was once again shot down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals this week, but the court has vacated his sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for the imposition of a separate sentence for each of the first-degree murder convictions.
Judges Sylvia R. Cooks, John D. Saunders and Shannon J. Gremillion of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals listened to the case presented by Prince and his attorney, Annette Roach of the Louisiana Appellate Project (Lake Charles).
Arguing for the state was Assistant District Attorney Roger P. Hamilton.
The defense assigned four different errors that were ultimately ruled against by the court, though Cooks offered a dissenting opinion in regards to one of the assignments.
However, the court did vacate the sentence Prince is currently serving and remand the case so that the trial court could enter separate sentences for each of the first-degree murder convictions, in accordance with La. Rev. Stat. 14:30
Prince’s case dates back to January 2005, when the badly-burned bodies of Angela Matte and Jackie Campbell were discovered at the scene of a trailer fire in Acadia Parish. Investigators found Matte on the bed springs with wire wrapped around her neck and Campbell on the floor.
Neither the cause of the fire nor the victims’ deaths was determined. A jailhouse informant told investigators and also later testified that Prince confessed to the murders and the burning of the bodies. He alleged that Prince had met the victims in a Rayne bar and left the bar with them. He also stated that Prince said he had sex with the women in the trailer and had hit one woman in the throat and got on top of her to strangle her to death. He then, allegedly, grabbed an extension cord and strangled the other woman. The informant also stated that Prince then placed papers under the mattress and started a fire.
On Oct. 11, 2007, an Acadia Parish grand jury indicted Prince and charged him with two counts of first-degree murder in accordance with La. Rev. Stat. 14:30. Prince entered a plea of not guilty on Nov. 5, 2007, and the State declared its intent to seek the death penalty on the same day.
The parties selected a jury Jan. 17, 2013, through Jan. 28, 2013, with the trial beginning on the 28th. On Jan. 30, 2013, a unanimous jury found Prince guilty as charged on both counts. In the penalty phase, however, the jury was deadlocked and, on Feb. 8, 2013, the district court sentenced Prince to serve life in prison.
Those convicted of and sentenced for crimes have 30 days from sentencing to file an appeal. If, however, the person does not, he or she may still be able to seek an appeal by filing a motion for Out of Time Appeal. In Prince’s case, the out of time appeal was filed on Sept. 30, 2013, which was denied without hearing. Prince then sought a review of this denial. The Third Circuit Court ruled on Feb. 10, 2014, that, in accordance with the 1985 Louisiana case State v. Counterman, the Prince case should be remanded back to the trial court for a hearing, which ultimately led to Wednesday’s opinion.
Prince offered the following assignments of error in his appeal:
1. Trial evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.
“We are unwilling to say on appellate review that the evidence was insufficient to convict Defendant of the murders of Angela Matte and Jackie Campbell. This assignment of error is without merit,” wrote Saunders.
2. District court erred by overruling his objections to the state’s opening statement.
“We also find there is little likelihood the remarks influenced the jury and contributed to the verdict,” wrote Saunders.
3. State introduced false testimony from Michael Hayes, thus violating Napue V. Illinois (1959).
“Even though Hayes claimed he received no benefit in exchange for his testimony against Defendant, we find the issue of whether or not he received a benefit was explored before the jury. Thus, we find that Defendant fails to prove that Hayes’ testimony was improperly submitted to the jury, and, thus, failed to prove that he is entitled to a new trial,” wrote Saunders.
4. Trial court erred in overruling his request for a “great caution” jury instruction regarding the testimony of Michael Hayes.
“We agree that Hayes’ testimony was corroborated–there was evidence that confirmed material points of Hayes’ testimony as to what Defendant told him, and there was evidence that confirmed Defendant’s relationship to the crime. Thus, even if this court had found the instruction given by the trial court to be insufficient, we must consider the discretion given to the trial court to run a jury trial and the great deference given to jury verdicts, thus a ‘great caution’ instruction was unnecessary in the present case, and is not required that these instructions be given,” wrote Saunders.
Writing in dissent was Cooks, who seemingly had a problem with the “great caution” portion of the case.
“I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s affirmance of Defendant’s conviction. While I am reluctant at any time to set aside a jury’s verdict, I find the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give the required appropriate great caution instruction, which may have precluded the jury from reaching a verdict based on the law and facts. Therefore, I would vacate the jury’s verdict and remand the matter to the trial court for a new trial,” wrote Cooks.
“Instructing a jury to consider the reasons and motives a witness may have for testifying, is a far cry from instructing the jury as to the inherent unreliability of snitch testimony. A review of the trial court’s instruction clearly shows it comes well short of instructing the jury that it must use great caution when weighing the credibility of snitch testimony.”
The court nevertheless vacated Prince’s sentence, remanding the case for the entry of a separate sentence for each first-degree murder conviction in accord with La. Rev. Stat. 14:30 without further comment.