Preview:

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 003 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 19th day of January, 2006 , are as follows:

BY CALOGERO, C.J. :

2005-K -0213

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. RUBEN SOSA (Arson With Intent to Defraud)

(Parish of Jefferson)

Retired Judge Phillip C. Ciaccio, assigned as Justice Pro Tempore, sitting for Associate Justice Catherine D. Kimball. For these reasons, we reverse the decision of the court of appeal and remand the case to that court for consideration of the assignments of error pretermitted below. REVERSED AND REMANDED. JOHNSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

(01/19/2006) SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2005-K-0213 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RUBEN SOSA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON CALOGERO, Chief Justice* We granted the writ application filed by the State of Louisiana to address the merits of the court of appeal's decision which reversed the defendant's conviction and sentence for arson with intent to defraud, the court of appeal having decided the case in favor of the defendant upon finding that the state had failed to prove a specific intent to defraud. After reviewing the decision below, we find the court of appeal erred in its assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence. If the jurors could have rationally found that the defendant had intentionally set the fire in his kitchen to burn his home, then those jurors could also have rationally found that the defendant had done so with the intent to defraud his insurer on the basis of his filing the subsequent claim that resulted in an initial payout of $90,000. In this circumstantial evidence case, the jurors, when they returned their verdict of guilt, clearly rejected the defendant's hypothesis of innocence, presented in defense counsel's closing argument, that he had had no motive to defraud his insurance company. Because after reviewing the record we find the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty of arson with intent to defraud, we reverse the court of appeal's decision and

Retired Judge Phillip C. Ciaccio, assigned as Justice Pro Tempore, sitting for Associate Justice Catherine D. Kimball. 1

*

remand the case for consideration of the defendant's assignments of error pretermitted by the appellate court. FACTS The defendant, Ruben Sosa, was charged with arson with the intent to defraud, a violation of La. Rev. Stat. 14:53. The trial was conducted over three days, and thereafter, a six-person jury found him guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced him to serve five years imprisonment, but it ordered the first two years to be served on home incarceration and suspended the remaining three years. The court then placed the defendant on active probation and ordered him to pay restitution within five years. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the defendant's conviction and sentence, on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had possessed the specific intent to defraud when he set the fire, and pretermitted the defendant's remaining assignments of error. State v. Sosa, 04-0507 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/28/04), 892 So.2d 633, 641. We granted the state's writ application to determine the correctness of that ruling. 05-0213 (La. 5/6/05), 901 So.2d 1078. At trial, Dennis Guidry, an officer with the Jefferson Parish Arson Investigation Unit, testified that in response to information he received about the defendant, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives (ATF), installed on January 24, 2000, a surveillance camera to monitor the defendant's home. Officer Guidry also had "flagged" the defendant's address with the Fire Alarm Headquarters, which meant that the on-call investigator was to be notified anytime there was a response to the address. Two days later, a fire broke out at the defendant's home. At that time, Officer Guidry notified ATF Agent John Springer, who also participated in the investigation. According to Officer Guidry, when he arrived at the

2

scene, he advised the defendant of his Miranda rights and informed him that he was under investigation. Officer Guidry testified that the defendant stated that he had left the house around 7:30 a.m. and that he "passed by" the house at 10:30 a.m., but that he did not stop or go inside. However, unbeknownst to the defendant, the

surveillance videotape showed him entering his house at 10:53 a.m. and exiting at 11:01 a.m. Around 11:50 a.m., the videotape also showed an automobile, similar to the one driven by the defendant's wife, pass in front of the home, slow down, and then continue down the street. Smoke from the house was noticed at approximately 11:53 a.m. The defendant gave consent to search his residence, which Officer Guidry and Agent Springer conducted. Both believed that the heaviest fire damage occurred in the kitchen. Officer Guidry and Agent Springer, who were qualified as experts in the field of cause and origin of fires, testified that they determined the fire started at the east wall of the kitchen near the gas range and that it spread into the attic by an unnatural hole in the ceiling. As a result, it did not appear that the fire had progressed normally. In their opinion, the fire was intentionally set. First, Agent Springer testified that the fire began in the kitchen area and was purposely set, possibly by the use of a flammable material placed in the frying pan which was left on the stove top, and that the "knob to the south side of the range was in an on position." He elaborated: Now, for a fire to spread from the kitchen area into the attic, the room would have had to reach a condition that we talked about earlier called flashover, where it's total room involvement, weakening the sheetrock on the ceiling. It would have been a long duration fire causing the sheetrock to weaken and possibly collapse. Then, that would allow penetration

Download 2005-K-0213 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. RUBEN SOSA.pdf

Louisiana Law