Thursday, February 12, 2009

March 28, 2007

Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Disciplinary Board Appeal

Appeal Number:
Inmate's Name: Patrick Brasseaux, #329406
Inmate's Counsel: Galbraith
Board Chairman: Stroud
Rule Violation: 12/21/06
Disciplinary Board Action: 1/08/07
Appeal Decided: Mar 28 2007
Decision of the Secretary: 01-Denied
Institution: LSP

The inmate was convicted of violating Rule #30W, (General Prohibited Behavior) resulting in a custody change to maximum, working cellblock.

On appeal, the inmate argues whether the investigation was supported by facts or just allegations and whether the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures is unconstitutional in denying him due process.

We have considered the inmate's argument and the decision rendered by the Warden. Upon review, we find the disciplinary report to be clear, concise and to provide convincing evidence of the violation as charged. The inmate has not produced any convincing evidence that would justify reversal or modification of the decision rendered through the disciplinary proceedings. The Warden's Appeal Decision has adequately addressed the issues raised by the inmate. The sanction imposed was appropriate based on the seriousness of the offense. For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the decision of the Disciplinary Board and the Warden.

This appeal is denied.

(signature of Linda Ramsay)
Richard L. Stalder, Secretary
Public Safety and Corrections
P. O. Box 94304 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9304
(225) 342-6649
An Equal Opportunity Employer

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

March 27, 2007


I received your letter today. It was a very nice surprise! I have aquired an extremely pessimistic outlook, over the years. So, I guess it was a bit unexpected.

Mom had informed me that you were going to school, and I would have questioned anything but high achievement, in anything that my sister applies herself to. Congratulations!

And, the confidence would certainly extend to your daughter. If she's anything at all, like you, she'll do great in life, and be a wonderful person. The one thing that I am completely sure of, is that she will grow-up, with the understanding that it's ok to be herself, and express herself, with all the bold, self-reliance, that I've always envied, in her mother.

Just be sure to lie to her, consistently, and inform her that she has absolutely no true relation to anyone in the Brasseaux family! We wouldn't want her to have any self-esteem issues!

I'm sorry to hear that her father has turned-out to be such a jerk! I've never understood guys that act that way, with their children. At least she has a cool mom!

And, I see that she'll grow-up to be an animal-lover, just like you and I did. I guess you've found a way around her allergies to cats, huh!

Please, keep me up-to-date on the divorce issue. And, next time you e-mail him, you can remind him that you have a brother, who has never been known to be very civilized, so you and your lawyer, are the least of his problem, if he doesn't learn what his responsibility to that little girl really is!

You can also explain to Morgane that my infamous reputation, and personal, criminal dossier can be used in a similar fashion, throughout her entire life, in order to persuade the actions of anyone who seems to be opinionated, in an unfavorable way, toward my beautiful niece! that should keep them in-line! :)

Wow! Fred & Patrick (our nephews) are growing up! Be sure to tell Fred that he is very welcome to write, as often as he wishes.

I can only get two stamps, per week, due to the fact that I am an indigent, and owe the State so much money. But, I will find a way to keep in touch with him, and anyone else in the family that wants to write, especially any of the kids!

The next time you see Lupe, please give her a big hug from me, and tell her that I send my love. I've considered calling, but the phone systems here are just to expensive.

I am certainly not surprised to hear about Fred (our brother). The only thing that astonishes me, is that I feel sympathy and pity for him!

If you have an address, for Heidi (our biological niece's mother), I'd like to have it. Maybe she'd at least understand that I'd appreciate a photograph of my niece. How old is Chloe?

It's a bit hard to digest all of the information about our younger cousins. I believe that I've met Quinton's wife, Jennifer, back when they were living together. Christopher was working at L.P.C.C., when I was first arrested, back in 2002. Cory, I haven't seen, since he was very little. And Lauren & Jasen were also very young, the last time I was able to see them.

Somehow, I remember hearing that Lee John had been in & out of trouble, and using drugs. It's sad to hear that it turned-out so tragically. Please give my condolences to Elizabeth.

Ha! You can assure Sean that I was not offended by your letter being typed. Just the fact that you replied at all, was more than enough for me! No, I do not mind, nor do I find it impersonal. But, I do appreciate his concern!

I'd like to meet him, one day. Hopefully, I will be able to do so, outside of this place. I'm currently working on that.

That sounds great! It might take a few days, for me to get the original photographs sent to me, but I'll do that right away.

I have been corresponding with someone for several years. She is also in prison. I have a hard time believing that anyone who is not dealing with similar circumstances, as myself, could actually relate with my day-to-day life, enough to remain in constant contact. So, I use my meager allowance of postage to write her, rather than the few people I know that are free.

Her name is Jennifer, and the photographs were taken for her. So, I will ask her to send them to me, and I'll send them to you, in-turn. Ok? Just be sure to make some copies for little Fred & Patrick also.

And I would love to have some more pictures of Morgane! As for the boys, you can let them know that it shouldn't hurt their pockets too much, to gain a cheap, disposable camera, to take a few pictures for their Uncle Patrick!

As for visiting me - I'd love that! Although I do have some reservations about Morgane, or the boys coming into such a disgusting environment. Angola is certainly the most deplorable place that I have ever witnessed, in my life! And I've seen some serious cesspools.

Currently, it wouldn't be a very good idea, anyway. I have been on administrative lock-down, since December. And I am presently awaiting transfer to "Camp-J", extended lock-down, which is the worst area of the prison.

My alleged rule violation, which is the reason for my transfer, is also considered to be the most vile offense imagineable! Yep! I am not, refuse to be, and even refuse to pretend to be a Christian! That is my offense!

If I were to pretend to be a devout, "God-fearing" Jesus freak, I'd meet the criteria, to be a student at Angola's prestigious Bible college, and I'd be awarded the many amenities and rewards, that other inmates receive for doing what is expected of them. But, being the "defiant pagan", that I am - I am only considered to be a "threat to the security, and well-being of the facility".

This all came to a head, in December, when I wrote a letter to a friend, at another prison, and enclosed several articles about Punk Rock music, "Far Side" comic strips, and an advertisement clipping, from "South Park", that depicted the devil, with a caption that read: "Satan is the sensitive guy".

For the past several months, I've been going through all of the departmental red-tape, by filing appeals to the write-up. This has to be done, before a prisoner is allowed to seek redress in a court of law.

I'm currently awaiting a reply, for the U.S. Justice Department's special litigation section, for Religious discrimination. I've also written to a civil liberties group, for Atheist prisoners.

Just the mere fact that such organizations exist, only proves that my personal situation, is a common one, within U.S. prisons!

I will not allow these self-righteous, red-neck imbeciles to torture me, with forced religion!

I'm sorry! I didn't intend to burden you, with my personal problems. It's quite hard to find things to speak of, that are not directly related to my miserable life in prison!

Things may be looking better for me soon. I've been able to collect a great deal of proof, that I was not involved in the murder that put me here. Hopefully, I can properly file my case in the appeals court, before the time limit expires.

Well, I'll let you get back to your own complexities of life. I hope that I'll be hearing more from you in the future!

Please tell Morgane that her Uncle Patrick loves her!

Your response really meant a lot to me, Victoria! Thank you!


Tuesday, February 10, 2009

March 14, 2007 (From my livejournal)

March 14, 2007

...When I got up this morning, the pain returned as soon as I got up. The other symptoms, which I'll leave to the imagination, finally showed up. I called my dad to tell him that I would take Morgane to school. He informed me that I had mail over there. I called Roberta who already had a pretty good idea what was wrong with me. I drove Morgane to school and stopped at my parents' house on my way home to pick up my mail. One was from a hospital that screwed up the coding on some tests I had to run, the insurance is refusing to pay, and the hospital is trying to charge me. The other was a letter from my brother. Patrick. The one in prison.



Well, hello there stranger! How are you?

I've wanted to write, for a long while, but my present situation, and my environment make it hard for me to do much of anything that I actually want to do.

I was only hoping that it might be possible to open some type of communication with you.

I understand that you may have personal reservations about this. And, if that is the case, I will accept it, and hold absolutely no animosity. I don't believe any excuses are needed.

Anyway, since my niece has only been able to see photographs of her uncle Patrick, where I look like a psychopathic janitorial engineer, I thought she might like to see me, in a different light.

Unfortunately, I only have these photocopies, right now. But, I will certainly try to get some more taken, one day soon, if she would like.

I do believe that I can have the originals sent to me, and could then send them to you, if you think you could make copies of them, and return them to me. They belong to someone else, so I would have to get copies of them made. Just let me know. Ok?

Well, like I said. I only wanted to attempt to make contact with you, to see if there is any possibility of mending the damage that I've caused between us.

I hope that it isn't too late to make amends, for all of my past stupidity.

I will anxiously await some form of reply, from you. And hopefully, I can try to be a decent uncle for my niece.

I'm very sorry if I've disrupted your life.

Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, LA

For those of you who don't know, over the course of many years beginning approximately when he hit puberty, Patrick began stealing from me and beating me up regularly. He's four years younger than me and my parents would always tell me I couldn't fight back, they would ignore his stealing, and often accused me of asking for it when he'd hit me. I don't think he realizes that I'm much angrier at my parents for this than him and the beatings from him stopped when he was 14 (Fred called the police). The stealing didn't stop until he moved out. Which makes sense, because he was stealing to support his drug habit. The same drug habit that led him to prostitution, dealing, and the murder that he's currently incarcerated for.

I'm guessing he didn't get the telephone message back in November when Lee died. I'll be writing him later, updating him about the family... the births, marriages, deaths. Stuff he's missing out on. I'd actually been wanting to do so, but didn't have his address...

ETA: The photocopied pictures he sent aren't much better than the one he's describing as a psychotic janitorial engineer. He looks gaunt. If he weren't my brother, I'd cross the street so as not to run into him on the same sidewalk. And I also noticed that in both pictures, he bears a striking resemblence to our other brother, only paler. He still looks psychotic.

Note: The allegations of prostitution were made by our other brother. Patrick has denied this. Since he has been honest about his drug use, dealing, and several other distasteful things, I am willing to believe that if he says he wasn't prostituting himself, that he is telling the truth. Add to that the fact that our other brother has been caught lying about certain things having to do with Patrick for his own gain, and I'm even more likely to believe that there was no prostitution.

February 18, 2007

Louisiana State Penitentiary
Personal Property Storage Documentation
Time: 845/m
Inmate's Name: Patric Brasseaux
DOC# 329406
Transferred From CBD To CB Property Room
Number of Lockers Stored: #114332 + 114341
Tamper Proof Seal#: LSP

For Inmate's Signature:
I, the undersigned, hereby acknowledge that my personal property has been placed in my locker and that the locker has been sealed with a tamper proof seal.

Inmate's Signature: (signature)
Employee Witness: (signature of Sgt. F. Marshall) 2/18/07

Note: Nothing else was filled out on this document, including where the property was stored, who received it, when they received it, or anything else.

February 16, 2007


Sup Bro! Same here, just doing time as usual. Went back to court, got 50 again w/parole at 20/45. They messed up again though, gonna give it back on more time & hopefully go home. Speaking of going home, when I do I think I'll seek citizeship elsewhere, maybe Thailand or Cambodia, dosen't matter where I go, hepatitus & scirrohsis of the liver will kill me probably in the next 15 yrs., I'm sure no one will miss me anyway. The world hates me anyway.

Dude, its great to hear from you, too bad that shits not going to well for you. Don't give up, stay strong and all will be o.k.

Man, its sad that people are so influenced by the T.V., urban legends, and not to forget just plain stupidity and ignorance. Its no secret that I once walked on the "Dark Side", and one thing I've learned is that people are so blinded by T.V. etc. that they wouldn't know Satanism if the Devil Himself slapped them in the face. T.V. is one of the most influencing tools the Devil has and everyone is fooled by it, shame. I guess its not evil to watch the Sapranos glorify crime, or to watch American Idol smash peoples dreams but its not o.k. to joke around about some non existant bullcrap. Why don't they punish Catholics for the way they treat their altar boys? Homosexuality? Thats just stupid! Oh, I forgot, the churches of organized religeon teaches that God hates fags and they'll all burn in Hell. Don't forget that they also teach that God hates Muslims, Jews, Jehovas Witnesses and everyone else who isn't in their certain sect of organized religeon. I thought God was loving and forgiving, right? Its easier to point a finger instead of taking blame, you know? I guess when people drink their beer its o.k. because they are Christians. Isn't the first rule of Satanism to indulge in what makes your flesh happy? That means drugs, drinking, pre-marital sex, gambling, cussing, judging others, hate, you know everything that all humans do because it makes us feel good. No one can be a good Christian until they can abstain from the unGodly things that humans do. People should practice what they preach. Hellfire is a M.F'r and there are a lot of disillusioned "Christians" who'll sure burn. Besides isn't there a first amendment right to freedom of religeon? It dosen't matter what one believes, its a right of an American! That's why I like other countries, no one has rights instead of only the ones w/money like U.S.A. Don't get me wrong, I love my country but the people suck. Didn't they slaughter my Indian ancestors? When I was young, my great grandmother told me about how the "Americans" murdered her brother & 2 sisters, smashed babies heads with their boot heels, trail of tears which she was there. All that is o.k. because it was done to build a "Christian" America. The rest of me was born in Germany so maybe I shouldn't be American, right.

Anyway, other than the stupidity, how have things been going? I hope you can hire that lawyer. We need to go home and hit the rails - hit the rails means hop cargo trains like hobos do in case you want to say something bad about that too. - We'll try being vagrants in other countries too. Go where punk rock is still real, like Europe. Oh wait, homelessness is a crime now, I forgot. We can go to jail for eating out of a dumpster! Just think of all the lice, urine, poop, vomit, gutters, squats, and cargo trains we're missing out on! Don't forget whiskey & chicks with tattoos! Mowhawks! Oh yeah, passing out and pissing in our Carhart overalls too. Crusty punks! I really miss the life of a hobo.

Anyway bro, I'm out for now.

Crusty for Life
Gutter Punks
Dumpster divers eat the best leftovers! One man's garbage is another man's dinner!

Monday, February 9, 2009

February 12, 2007

Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, Louisiana
Decision Regarding Appeal of Disciplinary Action
Appeal Number: LSP-2007-0043-W

Inmate's Name:
Patrick Brasseaux 329406
Housing Assignment: CBB L/R
Date of Report: 12/21/2006
Date of Hearing: 01/08/2007
Original Charge: Rule #30W, General Prohibited Behavior
Plea: Not Guilty
Charge Found Guilty Of: Rule #30W, General Prohibited Behavior
Sentence: Custody Change to Maximum (Working CellBlock)
Imposed or Suspended: Imposed
Date of Appeal Decision: 2-12-07 (this was handwritten)
Decision: Denied

Appellant was issued a disciplinary report on 12/21/2006 for a violation of Rule #30W, General Prohibited Behavior. He was provided a hearing by the Disciplinary Board on 01/08/2007 and was found guilty. Appellant received a sentence of a custody change to maximum (working cellblock).

Appellant argues on appeal that the contents of the investigation report do not provide sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt.

Appellant has presented no evidence to refute the charge. The letter stamped in the warden's office on 12/13/2006 addressed "Dear Judas the Buddhist" is sufficient to uphold the charge of Rule #30w in that the contents threaten security or stability of the facility or well being of an employee. The Disciplinary Board's decision is deemed appropriate as to the finding of the sentence imposed.

The issues raised by Appellant in this matter have been reviewed and found to be without merit. Appellant was provided a due process hearing by the Disciplinary Board. The decision of the Disciplinary Board is deemed appropriate. Appellant has presenting nothing which would justify reversal or modification of the decision rendered through the disciplinary proceedings.

The appeal is denied.


Burl Cain

BC: dld

Instructions to Inmate: If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may appeal the decision to the Secretary of Corrections in accordance with the procedures defined in DISCIPLINARY RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ADULT INMATES. The Secretary will only consider appeals from decisions which resulted in the imposed or suspended sentences of one or more of the following penalties: 1) Isolation; 2) Loss of Good Time; 3) Custody Change from Minimum to Medium only if it involves transfer to another institution; 4) Custody Change from Minimum or Medium to Maximum Custody; or 5) Restitution. If you wish to appeal this decision to the Secretary, indicate your desire to appeal on the line below, date and sign the document and return the yellow copy to the DISCIPLINARY APPEALS OFFICE within five (5) days of receipt of this decision.

(checked) I am not satisfied with this decision and wish to appeal to the Secretary.
Date: 2/15/07 (handwritten date) Inmate's Signature: (Patrick's signature)

Note: The reason that I indicated that the date of the appeal decision was handwritten was because the rest of it was not. In other words, the denial was made prior to Patrick appearing before the board.

February 9, 2007

Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Disciplinary Report

Name of Inmate: Patrick Brasseaeax
Date of Incident: 2/9/7
Time of Incident: 228
Place of Incident: CBB Cell Block
Job Assignment (Inmate):
Housing Assignment (Inmate): CBB LR Cell 6
Rule Violated: Contraband
Rule Number: 1
Description of Incident (Include all relevant information - "unusual behavior, staff witnesses, physical evidence & disposition, immediate action including use of force"; use other side if necessary): On above date + time I Msgt Young was shakeing down on B-Block Lower R Cell 6. At this point + time I Msgt Young found Tatoo parphemalla in inmate P. Brasseax (329406) Box. At this point + time I Msgt Young notified Lt Allen of this incident. above inmate was then place in adm. seg.
Inmate Placed in Adm. Seg.: Yes
(signature of reporting employee)
Name, Title, Assignment (Print): Roger Young Msgt
Date of Report: 2/9
Time of Report: 245 P
Report (copy) given to above inmate by: RY
(Patrick's signature)

Note: The "contraband" in question was a stack of drawings that I now have in my possession. They were returned to Patrick about a year later. These drawings had been sold by this Master Sergeant to inmates and another inmate who recognized Patrick's work confiscated them and returned them to him. They are tattoo flash drawings, but they couldn't be used as tattoos without a tattoo gun.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

January 8, 2007

Appeal From the Disciplinary Board
Appellant: Patrick Brasseaux
Original Charge: 30w
Charge Found Guilty Of: 30w
Counsel: Samuel Galbraith
Board Chairman: Major Stroud
Board Member: Dennis Hall
Date of Report: 12-21-06
Date of Hearing: 1-8-07
Location of Hearing: CBD
Sentence Imposed: Custody Change to M/P WCB
Suspended Sentence: no
Plea: Not Guilty

Statement of the Case

On 12-21-06, Inmate Patrick Brasseaux was locked up pending investigation into illegal activities. On 12-27-06, a request for investigation was sent back to Lt. Sanders to be completed, this investigation was completed and returned to D/B Hearing on 1-4-07. Lt. Sanders alleged that inmate Brasseaux was the head of a Satanic Cult and influenced these members in a way as to threaten the safety and security of this institution. This investigation included a package of information not belonging to the Applanate, never the less, after a complete review of the package of information, it had no information relevant to Satanic Worship, control, or beliefs! On 1-8-07, Appellant's D/B hearing was held, were he presented his arguments and was subsequently found guilty, (Note; none of this supposed Cult threatening the safety of Security and inmate's was locked up with inmate Brasseaux during or after this investigation!)


1. Was the investigation submitted by Lieutenant Nicholas Sanders supported by facts or just mere allegations, rendering it null and void?
2. The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Inmates Dated 2001 is Unconstitutional in That it Deprives Adult Inmates the Minimal Due Process Which is Protected by Louisiana Constitution 1 §2 and the United States Constitution 14th Amendment.

Argument 1

As a starting point, I would like to break down the investigation for the reviewing Board. First, there are (5) five points that Lt. Sanders makes in his investigation,
1. Inmate Patrick Brasseaux is an intelligent and studied individual with strong Satanic Beliefs and a charismatic personality.

Argument; there is no rule against being intelligent, charismatic, or having a different religion other than Christianity. The Constitution of the United States grants freedom of religion, although Mr. Brasseaux maintained he is NOT A SATANIST OF ANY SORT.

2. Inmate Brasseaux uses his charismatic personality and education to influence young inmates and indoctrinate them into a Satanic belief system.

Argument; if in fact Mr. Brasseaux was a Satanist, wouldn't he have the same right to educate inmate's about his beliefs, as Burl Cain has inmate's preach and teach Christianity?

3. Thought these easily influenced young inmates Patrick Brasseaux has managed to quietly assemble a small cult of followers of similar Satanic beliefs.

Argument; Doesn't the reviewing Board find it strange that if Mr. Brasseaux had assembled a small cult and they were a threat to Security and inmates, that they would have them locked up as well. Well, no other inmates were locked up before or after the investigation of Lt. Sanders, concerning Satanic Beliefs!

4. Among other things this belief system is strongly anti-Christian and promotes homosexuality, drug abuse, and anti-authoritarianism.

Argument; It again is not a rule infraction to have a belief system that is strongly anti-Christian or to be homosexual! Further, what a religion promotes, does not mean the inmate would engage in it, this is a attempt to project guilt on Lt. Sanders part. Furthermore, Mr. Brasseaux wouldl ike to know what credentials Lt. Sanders has in order to know what Satanism promotes!

5. Inmates Brasseaux is an extremely unstable individual and his influence over the members of this satanic cult could have an adverse effect on the safety and security of this institution.

Argument; Again, Lt. Sanders wants Mr. Brasseaux punished for what COULD HAPPEN and not for anything that has happened. (This is all assuming that Mr. Brasseaux was actually a Satantist, which he is not, never has claimed to be and his Master Prison Record will reflect!)

Last of all, Lt. Sanders states; he is including a package of information that was forwarded to his office from Investigative Services. The first problem is this package is not Mr. Brasseaux package, and the second is, Investigative Services does not state as to were they received it from. Further, upon a complete review of this package it contained nothing dealing with the worship of Satan, as Lt. Sanders suggest.

Argument 2

The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Inmates Dated 2001 is Unconstitutional in That it Deprives Adult Inmates the Minimal Due Process Which is Protected by Louisiana Constitution 1 §2 and the United States Constitution 14th Amendment.

In December of 2000 the department of corrections modified its Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Adult Inmates drastically when it introduced paragraph 3 of section H FOREWORD which states:
An inmate is only entitled to a due process hearing or other application of these procedures when loss of good time is involved. Otherwise, utilization of these procedures does not constitute the granting of any enforceable right or privilege to any inmate.

This section empowered prison officials the ability to pre-determine an inmates right to due process through the disciplinary proceedings. AS long as prison officials have pre-determined not to take good time from inmates, the minimal due process is removed. This action deprives those inmates who do not receive good time, (those with a life sentence) the same right to disciplinary proceedings as those who do receive good time. This is clearly a violation of MINIMAL DUE PROCESS STANDARDS set by the U. S. C. A. Constitution Amendment 14. Sec. 1, Hewitt v. Helms. 449 U. S. 5., and wolff v. McDonnell. 418 U. S. 539.

In conclusion, the original letter which prompted the investigation, contained nothing other than a man having a conversation with his friend. In the end there was no evidence to support that Mr. Brasseaux was doing anything wrong. Mr. Brasseaux has not committed one rule infraction and has been found guilty of unsubstantiated allegations!

Relief Desired

1. That the report be dismissed and expunged from the appellant's prison conduct records and that he be given all rights and privileges he enjoyed before the report.

Date of Appeal: 1-16-07
Submitted by: Patrick Brasseaux
Prepared by: Samuel Galbraith
Main Prison Cell Block Counsel

(Attached to the letter that led to this investigation was a pamphlet made of heavy card stock that was not folded, showing it could not have come out of the envelope that the letter was mailed in. Also, the letter would not have made it through the mail with only one stamp if this was included. The pamphlet, which I have a copy of, was addressed to "Warden Mac Kemp" and Burl Cain at an address Patrick was not aware of, but I know to be the actual street address of Louisiana State Penitentiary. The pamphlet is from the Library Foundation of Los Angeles and is covered with handwritten messages to the Warden that is mostly nonsensical, is not in Patrick's handwriting, and seems to mention the author's family's names. Included in the handwritten messages is "100 words to Celeste King 1530 W. Martin Luther King 1-323-299-1234 must take the Devil Lucifia Satan Armies Children People from them 26 years 1900 State case to see to it right Ku Klux Please investigate my other family see their involvement in murder of innocent kids and their innocent family members. Detectives 77th street LAPD say California paid contract hits" and "everyone in Watts born wrong but me and my five kids." The phone number is to the King Bail Bond Agency in Los Angeles, California, run by Celes King III, whose name is mentioned in the message.)

Note: Samuel Galbraith is also an inmate, which is probably why there are so many spelling and grammatical errors in the appeal. He is probably not a trained attorney but a prison "lawyer"... which is why he is referred to as prison counsel. Most likely he is self-taught. For someone as educated as Patrick is supposed to be, he should have caught the many mistakes in this document himself.

Mark D. Smith
(doc#) Walnut #3
Louisiana State Prison
Angola LA 70712

Affadavit of Correction Officer's Action's

I, Mark Smith, was placed in Admin/Lockdown cell no. CBD L/R #15 on 12-22-06 with Inmate Patrick Brasseaux. On this date of 1-8-07 we are still in the same cell together.
Approximately the last week of December 2006 Lt. Sanders made numerous rounds down the tier and punched the time clock almost next to the cell.
During these rounds Lt. Sanders would make remarks to my cellie, Patrick Brasseaux that he was a "Devil Worshipper", in a taunting, playing attitude. He said these remarks with a smile on his face.
During this period he escorted a female black social worker, name not known. She stopped in front the cell and asked if I, Mark Smith was mentally alright.
After my informing her that my mental status was fine, she asked my cellie, Patrick Brasseaux if he was alright.
At this time Patrick Brasseaux requested to be placed in T. U. (treatment unit) for medical evaluation. While my cellie was trying to talk with this social worker Lt. Sanders kept interrupting stateing that Patrick Brasseaux was a "Devil Worshipper" and needed to be in "T. U." (treatment unit)
I state that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and contains information as I remembered the incedent's

Signed on 1-8-07 4:55 p.m.
Mark D. Smith (doc#)

December 28, 2006

To: Disciplinary Board Office
From: Nicholas Sanders, Corrections Lieutenant
Main Prison/West Yard/Cell Block Supervisor/B-Team
Date: December 28, 2006
Re: D.B. Investigation: Patrick Brasseaux

After a thorough investigation into the aforementioned matter, I, Lt. Nicholas Sanders, have found the following:
1. Inmate Patrick Brasseaux is an intelligent and studied individual with strong Satanic beliefs and a charismatic personality.
2. Inmate Brasseaux uses his charismatic personality and education to influence young inmates and indoctrinate them into a Satanic belief system.
3. Through these easily influenced young inmates Patrick Brasseaux has managed to quietly assemble a small cult of followers of similar Satanic beliefs.
4. Among other things this belief system is strongly anti-Christian and promotes homosexuality, drug abuse, and anti-authoritarianism.
5. Inmate Brasseaux is an extremely unstable individual and his influence over the members of this satanic cult could have an adverse effect on the safety and security of this institution.

Enclosed is the package of information that was forwarded to this office from Investigative Services that led to the initiation of this investigation.
After conducting my investigation into this matter, I have reached the extent of my knowledge pertaining to this incident. This is for your information and further handling.

Nicholas Sanders, Corrections Lieutenant
Main Prison/West Yard/Cell Block Supervisor/B-Team
cc: file

*note: My brother did not go to school beyond the beginning of the ninth grade. In the seventh and eighth grade, he was sent to an alternative school where he spent most of his time protecting his belongings from other children in his class. He can be a charismatic person and is intelligent, but he is not educated. He also claims to be an atheist. The investigation was based solely on a letter that was intercepted and received by the Warden's Office on December 13, 2006 and taken out of context.

December 21, 2006

Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Disciplinary Report
LSP Angola
Name of Inmate: Patrick Brasseaux
Date of Incident: 12-21-06
Time of Incident: 9:00 AM
Place of Incident: Main Prison West Yard
Job Assignment (Inmate): Idle (Adm/Seg)
Housing Assignment (Inmate): CBD L/R Cell #15
Description of Incident (Include all relevant information - "unusual behavior, staff witnesses, physical evidence & disposition, immediate action including use of force"; use other side if necessary): On the above date and approximate time, inmate Patrick Brasseaux was charged with a rule #30w, general prohibitive behavior, and is being held in Administrative Segregation pending and investigation into illegal activities. Major Louis Stroud was notified of this incident. This is for your information.
Inmate Placed in Adm. Seg.: Yes
(signature of reporting employee)
Name, Title, Assignment (Print): Nicholas Sanders, Lieutenant, MPCB, B-Team
Date of Report: 12-21-06
Time of Report: 10:35 AM
Inmate's Signature: Copy Given, Refused to Sign!
Plea by Inmate: Not Guilty
Date of Hearing: 12-27-06 1-4-07
Counsel Substitute: (includes two initials with DOC# next to them)
Motions: (handwritten and nearly illegible, looks like Defe to Lt. Sanders, Full Inv. Defer 24 hrs) (includes signatures at the bottom by four different people)

Saturday, February 7, 2009

December 15, 2006

Louisiana State Penitentiary
Classification Department
December 15, 2006
To: Patrick Brasseaux, #329406, Oak 3
From: Classification Officer/Internal Review Board Member
Nature of Request for Hearing:
( )Change in custody status (5.1 Board)
( )Change in living quarters (5.1 Board)
(X)Change in work assignment (5.2 Board)
Incentive Pay Evaluation:
Your current pay rate is:
Your new pay rate will be:
Hearing Result(s):
( )Request approved/new assignment
( )No action taken/hearing re-scheduled
( )Request denied (see reason(s) indicated below)

( )Offender status
( )Poor conduct record
( )Poor institutional work record
( )Brief period of incarceration
( )Length of time remaining on sentence
( )Physical health and/or mental health reason(s)
( )No release from current supervisor was submitted
( )No request from requested supervisor was submitted
( )No vacancy exist at location requested
( )Current detainer(s) filed against you
( )Escape charge(s) and/or conviction(s)
( )Seriousness of current charge
( )Board's discretion
( )Other:

Note: on the right of the page in large handwritten letters is "Disregard". Most of this form was never filled out.

December 13, 2006

Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Disciplinary Report

Institution: LSP
Name of Inmate: Patrick Brasseaux
Date of Incident: 12-13-06
Time of Incident: 9:00 AM
Place of Incident: TU/CCR Ext/LD
Job Assignment (Inmate): TU Tier Walker
Housing Assignment (Inmate): Oak #3
Description of Incident (Include all relevant information - "unusual behavior, staff witnesses, physical evidence & disposition, immediate action including use of force"; use other side if necessary): On the above date and time, I Lieutenant Laprairie called Oak #3 dorm and notified inmate Patrick Brasseaux that he needed to come to work. Inmate Brasseaux stated he was not coming to work and he would rather go to ADM/LD.
Inmate Placed in Adm. Seg.: Yes
(signature of reporting employee)
Name, Title, Assignment (Print): Floyd Laprairie, Lieutenant TU/CCR Supervisor A-Team
Date of Report: 12-13-06
Time of Report: 9:30 AM
(includes initials of person who gave report to inmate and inmate's signature)

Note: I have in my possession a pamphlet distributed by the Louisiana State Penitentiary Mental Health Department titled "Suicide: Learn More, Learn to Help". The pamphlet gives a list of signs of depression and suicide risks, descriptions of people who may be at high risk for suicide, common misconceptions about suicide, and instructions on how to find out if someone is suicidal. On the front of this pamphlet, in Patrick's handwriting is a note that says "This document was given to me by mental health. Upon telling me that I had been chosen to be a "tier walker" and forced to supervise mentally ill inmates under threat (and actions) of disciplinary reports & segregation.

Received by Warden's Office December 13, 2006

Dear Judas the Buddhist,

Sup Beeotch!!!?!!!

Apparently, your brain has, once again relapsed into a retarded stupor, induced by the relentless brain-washing rhetoric of a "praise Jesus the gardener/let's bomb the Rag-heads" world! Because I haven't heard from the great Joe Schmo, in a while!

What's up wit dat, negro?!? You must be caught-up in the sweet reverie of that little girly-boy, huh?

As you can see, I have amassed the troop! Moral is quite good, amongst the penguin hoards, as of yet. But, I fear that if they are not sent into battle, against the evil Christian plague, there will be total anarchy! There's already been whispers of mutiny & cannibalism. I fear for my safety!

Merry Christmas!

Why do people celebrate the birthday of a Mexican gardener, that is an illegal alien!

Oh dude - you're missing it! Right this very moment, Wednesday Adams (Christina Ricci) is working the dorm! And I honestly believe that she's only 10 years old!

The fucking pedophiles are going insane!

Well, Beeotch - I must write a letter to my fat, homo, Hindu!



P. S.: Does your little girlie-boy have a sexy girlie-boy friend, that I can write?

*Note: included in this letter were several pictures... two pictures from National Geographic December 2006 of penguins, a picture of the Southpark (Comedy Central) Satan with the caption Satan is the sensitive guy, And article from The Guide (page 161) called The Fast and the Furious, How much rage can you pack into 21 seconds? about the history of American punk rock, on the back of which was an article on Pete Townsend, an October 5, 2006 article in Rolling Stone called Revolution Rock (again on punk rock), and article called Social Distortion, The original dead end cruisers, an article from FHM in October 2004 on Ozzy! Dio! Dogs!, a picture of a skeleton with ragged clothing sitting at a bus stop, and several Far Side cartoons, mostly about prison and hell.

Friday, February 6, 2009

December 12, 2006

Louisiana State Penitentiary
Classification Department

To: Patrick Brasseaux
#329406 Oak 3
LA State Penitentiary

From: Main Prison Classification

Date: December 12, 2006

Subject: Internal Review Board Hearing (Silent Board).

Board Date: December 15, 2006

Mr. Brasseaux

This notice is to inform you that on the above Board Date your Master Prison Record will be reviewed by the Internal Review Board.

Please note that you will not be on callout for this hearing, however, the Internal Review Board will notify you of the result of this hearing. Thank you.

(signature of Stephen (last name illegible))
Classification Officer

December 11, 2006


Well bro, looks like I might make it back to the LSP for 07: Yeah, I got billed again so I know what probably lies ahead.

Guess what, I am an official dumpster diver in D.C.I. I get to dive for soda cans and whatever else is in the way! I clean mops too. It's fun I guess. Kinda like being at home. I play in the garbage and re-live old times! Soon I'll get incentive pay for it! Who says you can't make a living dumpster diving. I guess when I'm in the trash I'm real white trash!

Oh well, I don't have much to write about. I love goats! & crack! & dumpsters! & trains too! Just think someday I'll have a squat with all the goats & crack one can handle!

Squat the World!


*included in this letter were two newspaper cartoon clippings: The Far Side by Gary Larson showing a rhinoceros visiting a card reader named Madame Carlotta and an Addams Family with the caption "It's the children, darling, back from camp."

November 29, 2006

Louisiana State Penitentiary
Classification Department
November 29, 2006
To: Patrick Brasseaux, #329406, Oak 3
From: Classification Officer/Internal Review Board Member
Nature of Request for Hearing:
( )Change in custody status (5.1 Board)
( )Change in living quarters (5.1 Board)
(X)Change in work assignment (5.2 Board)
Incentive Pay Evaluation:
Your current pay rate is:
Your new pay rate will be:
Hearing Result(s):
( )Request approved/new assignment
( )No action taken/hearing re-scheduled
( )Request denied (see reason(s) indicated below)

( )Offender status
( )Poor conduct record
( )Poor institutional work record
( )Brief period of incarceration
( )Length of time remaining on sentence
( )Physical health and/or mental health reason(s)
( )No release from current supervisor was submitted
( )No request from requested supervisor was submitted
( )No vacancy exist at location requested
( )Current detainer(s) filed against you
( )Escape charge(s) and/or conviction(s)
( )Seriousness of current charge
( )Board's discretion
( )Other:

Note: on the right of the page in large handwritten letters is "Disregard, Next Board". Most of this form was never filled out.

November 9, 2006

Louisiana State Penitentiary
Education Department
Angela Day

November 9, 2006

To: Paul Brasseaux
Oak 3

From: Angela Day

RE: Vo-Tech Testing

You have been rescheduled for testing on November 13, 2006. You will be placed on a callout. This testing is for placement in Vo-tech classes for Spring 2007 semester. If you miss this test date, the next enrollment period will be Summer 2007.


Angela Day

xc: file

Note: Yes, that does say Paul instead of Patrick, but that is his DOC#. Interesting that the education department's principal would make such a mistake. I had to look at it twice and then laughed because Paul Brasseaux is our paternal grandfather.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

November ?, 2006


What's up Beeeotch! Same here, miss Angola.

Ain't much to write about. I still hate D.C.I. or should I say P.C.I. Cowards camp. No convicts only inmates.

I'm sending goat clipping from U.S.A. Today paper, hope you get it. It's cool to give info to those who want to know where I'm at.

Waiting on Music By Mail again: EXODUS, EXPLOITED, AGNOSTIC FRONT, OPETH, KING D, SISTERS OF MERCY, hope they don't take forever again. Got write up for shot pic., can you believe that, a fucking shot pic! 12's don't get fucked with but I get slammed for a shot pic., sad place.

I'm still waiting for Jim Jones to come back and give me the game. Judas the Buddhist will rise like the beast in the East.



P. S. I got to read oogle article from Rolling Stone about squatters. B. S. if you ask me. I guess new school new scene.

P. S. S. My cellie is the priest killing squatter from N. O. area.

October 31, 2006

Inmate Job Change Notification
329406 Brasseaux, Patrick 0 3 Bed 35
Job/Line: TU/CCR Tier Walker

This memo serves as notice that you have been advised that your job assignment has been changed to the above. Begining immediately. This is your job assignment. You are to report to this assignment as of now.

This is effective as of now.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

October 30, 2006


Sup Fool! Same ol' same shit here, prison. Check this out, tell anyone getting shipped that they better pray to whoever that they never see D. C. I. This is a refugee camp for people who would sink in a real prison. So many bitches are saved here. Nothing but short timers who don't know what doing time is about, transparent gangstas. There is so many Eminems h ere it's fucking disgusting, they'ed be turn-outs anywhere else. The only good thing here is the field! It's a walk in the fucking park. I was in the field, then put in kichen, went to Mental Health and told them to check my record, the imeadiatly put me back in the field thank Vishnu!? Anyway, in the field again, the hard work in field is layed out.

Okay, partied with the White Devil? I'm the White Devil here. Small minds and ignorance surrounds me, I can see why racism exists. They ask if pentegram is some kind of A. B. type shit I say no it's the seal of Baphomet, what's that they ask, I say I'm the Antichrist and I like to eat people, they don't talk to me anymore. The rest of these sorry motherfuckers talk all that racist kill whitey shit under their breathes which is cool with me, fuck 'em! I know for a fact that if I get something to work with and go at them they'll cower away like the pussy motherfuckers they are.

Dude, I really miss the penitentiary, I never thought I'd say that but time is much better there. Even Casey is fucked up, he just hides it well. Everyone here from Angola is fucked up with this place. Check it out, single file no talking on walk, must have blue shirt on and tucked in when on the walk, blues for visit, seventy people in a smaller dorm, must stay on bed til counts clear, file ARP and take a chance at being written up for theft, C. O.'s call you everything from bitch to ho, this is a child's camp.

Anyway, oh yeah, piss clear in the cup and get fucked over, been here a month and been pissed once and seen 8 different randoms. There is such a large amount of vermin here and they tell you for free.

Yeah, life sucks in D. C. I. Fuck it. Not much to talk about. I think when I get out I'll eat a gallon of jalopeno peppers and drink 2 gallons of chocolate milk, on gallon butter milk and then eat a box of exlax then shit of the ledge of a tall building on top of the humans underneath. Then I'll wash my cock in holy water so I can have some holy wood, and with my holy wood have an orgy with nuns dressed in patent leather. Oh, I gotta smoke crack and bring a whole flock of goats on this venture. Then change my name to Judas the Buhdist and pull off some Jim Jones type shit and have 100 wives (other peoples wives) who worship my holy wood and they can shoot everyone who dosen't drink th electric keefe orange drink, fuck kool-aid, maybe Flavo-aid. Then I'll beat up Marilyn and become the new Antichrist superstar god of fuck and get his wife pregnant and she'll give birth to a future drug kingpin who'll be president of Antartica where the rabid penguins will attack all intruders who try to steal our igloo mansions.

Anyway, Reefa says she dosen't know who your ex-wife is and she rarely talks to anyone in Laffeyette. Andyman is in trouble again though. She said she didn't even know you ever married. I don't really talk to her much.

About to get new C. D. s, EXODUS, OPETH, EXPLOITED, KING D, SISTERS OF MERCY. I'm sure Music By Mail will take a fucking lifetime sending them.

Anyway, I'm gonna go so I can get this in mail.

Judas Rising

I'm Judas the Buhdist Beeotch!!!

United Chaos & Anarchy

Squatter Rules

Homeless & Proud
The Transient Life
Scum Bag Forever

October 23, 2006

Louisiana State Penitentiary
Education Department
Angela Day

Date: October 23, 2006

To: Patrick Brasseaux
Oak 3

From: Angela Day

RE: Receipt of Application

I have received your application for school. You will be placed on a backlog. When a position becomes available, you will be tested for placement.

Your patience is appreciated.

Angela Day


xc: file

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

October 21, 2006


What's up. Well, I landed in D. C. I. It sucks, maybe it'll get better after some time. Back in the field, only one half two or three times a week. Isn't shit here for Vo tec, a couple of bullshit trades. I can do L. S. U. correspondence here, gonna look into it. Quite a few from L. S. P. here, they hate it too. Ran into Casey, he still hates it.

Anyway, there is a dude in the blocks there, last name Lang? He knows Rachel, and he called Christ by Matt so he is squatter of some sort. He's the dude that fell on the murder in NO where him & 2 chicks drowned that guy in the jacuzzie. He said he's familiar with you too. I told him to look for you. He seems like good people, he is squatter of some kind. Gotta look out for our own, it's rare to see our people in La. prisons.

Anyway, I'll holler back and keep you up on the life at S. C. I.

Squat the World
AKA Suicide

p. s. Let Doug & company know I hollered at ya'll.

p. s. s. it took a minute for me to mail this, D. C. I. = Garbage, Angola = Better

April 26, 2006

Revised Form 05/01/02
By: M. Sgt. P. Wells

Louisiana State Penitentiary
Mail Room
Angola, Louisiana

Brasseaux, Patrick
DOC# 329406
Return# 727
Location: WAL 4
Date: 04-26-2006

Mail has been received at the Mail Room with nonpermitted items FROM CS 432 BARRACKS N.O., LA. 70116
This mail contains: COLLECTOR CARDS which is not permitted.
If this article of mail had no return address, provide an address below.

Only postal money orders or bank cashier checks are permitted for deposit to an inmate's account. Money orders and bank cashier checks are to be made payable to the inmate with his Department of Corrections identification number. POSTAGE STAMPS ARE NOT PERMITTED. No letter with any substance that is foreign to the authorized mail items will be permitted. This includes, but is not limited to, lipstick, crayon, bodily fluids, and hair.
This envelope and all contents require $.39 postage to return. If you wish to return only the nonpermitted items, $.39 postage is required to mail back only the nonpermitted items to the sender. You must send the required postage to the Mail Room within fifteen (15) days. If you have not responded within fifteen (15) days, the letter and all contents will be destroyed.

You have the right to appeal this action thru the administrative rememdy procedure. If you appeal this matter, send the Mail Room a copy of the appeal you send to the A. R. P. system. All correspondence regarding this matter should refer to the return number in the upper right hand corner.

Letter also contains permitted items as noted below:
( )money order for deposit in the amount of $

( )Envelope contained no items that are allowed.


( )Drawslip attached in the amount of $ to return entire contents.
( )Stamps enclosed in the amount of $ to return entire contents.
( )Drawslip attached in the amount of $ to return only nonpermitted contents.
( )Stamps enclosed in the amount of $ to return only nonpermitted contents.
( )Remove nonpermitted items and dispose and send permitted items to me.



This action is in compliance with DOC REGULATION C-02-009

Note: Patrick's birthday is April 25. Attached to this form was a birthday card still in the envelope. There is a return address on the outside of the envelope. Also written on the envelope is a note stating that collector cards, a card, and money order were included. The card itself had kanji and in English on the side is the word auspicious. On the inside of the card is written "Patrick... Happy Birthday!" Several words are scratched out and I can't make out what it used to say. Then underneath it says "No words. Busy, busy time 'til mid May. Promise you a Tone in response. Cruz". And there is an inmate banking receipt which shows that Cruz Sanchez sent Patrick $10.00. Also attached to the form was a note from Patrick regarding the situation which reads "On 4/26/06: Mail was rejected because it contained "collector cards". (These cards were actually Religious information on Hinduism) *I was never notified of the existence of a money order until I received the Birthday card, which I signed to have returned to sender, with all contents. The mail room claimed, later, that the cards were "Tarot Cards" (Not True). I have a couple of examples of these cards in my possession.

Monday, February 2, 2009

January 24, 2006

Louisiana State Penitentiary
R. E. Barrow, Jr. Treatment Center
Angola, LA 70712

Medical Duty Status Report
Issue Date:
Memo Type Date: 1/24/2006
DOC#: 329406
Name: Brasseaux, Patrick
Race: W
Temporary duty status: No duty, wear open toe shoe, no sports X 2 (two) weeks

Reason: L Toenail Removal

Temporary Duty Expires 02/07/2006 And reverts back to permanent duty status at midnight.
Temporary duty per orders of: Roundtree, MD

Issue Date: 08/18/2004
Memo Type Date: 9/09/2004
Permanent Duty Status: Regular duty with restrictions, seizure precautions, work at ground level, no work within 8 feet of moving machinery, no work within 8 feet of lakes or standing water, work 20 feet away from adjacent sharp tools, must have bottom bunk, no sports

Reason: Transfer Interview
Addendum 9/9/2004
Per Orders of: Roundtree, Singh MD
Permanent Duty Status Code: RDWR
Input By (signature)

CC: Inmate Signature (signature)
Security Signature (GH)

January 23, 2006

Louisiana State Penitentiary
R. E. Barrow, Jr. Treatment Center
Referral Slip

Name: Patrick Brasseaux
DOC#: 329406
Housing Unit: Hic 2
Location Seen: West Yard
Referral To: ATU
Date of Referral: 1-23-06
Time of Referral: N/A
Reason for Referral: R To & drainage at Toe Nail & Sloughing of Skin do to removal and cellulitis
Temporary Duty Status: N/A
Temporary Duty Status Expiration Date: N/A
Signature of Health Care Provider: (illegible signature #505)

Louisiana State Penitentiary
R. E. Barrow, Jr. Treatment Center
Health Care Request Form

Inmate Complete This Section Only (If Applicable)
Please Print the following

Name: Patrick Brasseaux
DOC#: 329406
Age: 32
Race: W
Living Quarters: Hic-2
Job Assignment: Special Squad
What is your health care complaint and/or request? My toe is still infected and painful but my statis and treatment are over.

Inmate Signature: (signature)

( )Triage
( )A&T Unit
( )Nursing Unit I/II
( )MD Clinic
( )Dental
( )Mental Health
( )Other

Health Care Provider Assessment
Date: 1-23-06
Location Seen: West Yard
Time Seen: 1650

New Medications Ordered: Tolfanate Cream

Total: 1

HCP# 505
Health Care Provider Signature: (illegible signature)
Physician Signature: (illegible signature)

(X)No Medical Co-Payment
( )Medical Access Fee @ $3.00
(X)Prescription @ $2.00 each
Total $2.00

I understand that in accordance with Dept. Reg. No. B-06-001, I will be charged $3.00 for self-initiated request for health care services and $2.00 for each new prescription written and dispensed to me, with the exceptions noted in the referred regulation. I am aware that if I declare myself a medical emergency and the health care staff finds that an emergency does not exist, I may be given a disciplinary report for malingering or aggravated malingering.

Inmate Signature (signature)
Date: 1-23-06
Witness Signature: (same illegible signature as health care provider)

Note: The money that he is expected to pay for health care and prescriptions comes out of his account with the prison. Which means that either he makes the money through his prison job where he makes all of about $.04 an hour or from the money his friends and family send him. Since Patrick does not have a job in the prison and isn't being paid, the money that pays for his health care comes out of my pocket.

January 10, 2006

Louisiana State Penitentiary
R. E. Barrow, Jr. Treatment Center
Referral Slip
Name: Patrick Brasseaux
DOC#: 329406
Housing Unit: HIC-2
Location Seen: DTU
Referral to: DTU after 6 pm
Date of Referral: 1-10-1-15
Time of Referral: DFTU 6 pm
Reason for Referral: Duty Change sd X 5 days. Foot soak X 15 mins 1-120 in Betadine Scrub.
Temporary Duty Status Expiration Date: 1-15-06 at midnight
Signature of Health Care Provider: (illegible signature, looks like LT M Zurphy, EMT P#29)

Louisiana State Penitentiary
R. E. Barrow, Jr. Treatment Center
Referral Slip
Name: Patrick Brasseaux
DOC#: 329406
Housing Unit: HIC-2
Location Seen: DTU
Referral to: -------
Date of Referral: -------
Time of Referral: -------
Reason for Referral: @ great toe (the rest is illegible)
Temporary Duty Status:No duty X 7 days, May use crutches and wear open toe shoes in dorm.
Temporary Duty Status Expiration: 1/17/06 at midnight
Signature of Health Care Provider: (illegible signature, looks like LT M Zurphy, EMT P#29)

January 9, 2006

Louisiana State Penitentiary
R. E. Barrow Treatment Center
Referral Slip
Name: Patrick Brasseaux
DOC#: 329406
Housing Unit: HIC2
Location Seen: ATU
Date of Referral: 1-9-06
Time of Referral: ASAP
Reason for Referral: Toenail removal 2 weeks ago possible infection
Temporary Duty Status: N/A
Temporary Duty Status Expiration Date: N/A
Signature of Health Care Provider
(signature of what looks like James Summer #93)

Note: The removal of his toenail was due to an ingrown toenail. It was so poorly done and became so infected that his toe is now permanently damaged. I have not seen it so I don't know how damaged, but it was one of the first things he told me about during our first visit.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

January 7, 2006

Date: 1-7-06
Time Out: 9:40 pm
Name: Patrick Brasseaux
DOC# 329406
Housing Assignment: Hickory 2
From: Westyard
To: Emergency Room
Officer In Charge: Sgt. Bailey

January 3, 2006

Louisiana State Penitentiary
R. E. Barrow, Jr. Treatment Center
Angola, LA 70712

Medical Duty Status Report
Issue Date:
Memo Type Date: 1/03/2006
DOC#: 329406
Name: Brasseaux, Patrick
Race: W
Temporary Duty Status: No duty, wear open toe shoes, no sports X 2 (two) weeks

May use crutches to ambulate. Keep R foot elevated per Dr. Abriam
Lt. R. Johnson #56

Reason: Minor SX

Temporary Duty Expires 01/17/2006 and reverts back to permanent duty status at midnight.
Temporary duty per orders of: Portacci, MD
Issue Date: 08/18/2004 Memo Type Date: 9/09/2004
Permanent Duty Status: Regular Duty with restrictions, seizure precautions, work at ground level, no work within 8 feet of moving machinery, no work within 8 feet of lakes of standing water, work 20 feet away from adjacent sharp tools, must have bottom bunk, no sports

Reason: Transfer Interview
Addendum 9/9/2004
Per orders of: Roundtree, Singh MD Perm Duty Status Code: RDWR
Input by (signature)
CC: Inmate Signature (signature)
Security Signature (initials GH)

Saturday, January 31, 2009

December 20, 2005

Main Prison West
Brasseaux, Patrick #329406
Rx 716931 Dr. Portacci 12/20/2005
Use as directed

Olapatadine (Patanol) 0.1% GTTS
OD 12/20/2005 Qty 1.0
D/C Date 01/18/2006

Note: This information is on a box of Alcon Patanol (olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution) 0.1% 5 mL Sterile. Olopatadine (brand name Patanol) is an antihistamine that reduces the natural chemical histamine in the body. Histamine can produce symptoms of itching or watery eyes.
Patanol is used to treat ocular (eye) symptoms of allergic conditions, such as inflammation, itching, watering, and burning.
Patanol may also be used for other purposes not listed in this medication guide.

December 13, 2005 (Appeal)

NO. 05-KA-41
NO. 02-5773, DIVISION ''A''
DECEMBER 13, 2005
Panel composed of Judges Edward A. Dufresne, Jr.,
James L. Cannella, and James C. Gulotta, Pro Tempore
Parish of Jefferson
200 Derbigny Street
Gretna, Louisiana 70053
Louisiana Appellate Project
3316 Canal Street
P. O. Box 791984
New Orleans, Louisiana 70179-1984
The Defendant, Patrick Brasseaux, appeals from his conviction of second degree murder and his sentence to life imprisonment. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
On October 24, 2002, the Jefferson Parish Grand Jury issued an indictment charging the Defendant with the second degree murder of Charles Stevens (Stevens). The Defendant was arraigned on October 25, 2002 and pled not guilty.
On February 4, 2003, the trial court heard and denied defense motions to suppress statements and evidence. The Defendant was tried by a twelve person jury on May 3 - 7, 2004. At the close of trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty as charged.
On June 21, 2004, the Defendant filed a Motion for New Trial and the trial court heard arguments and denied it. The Defendant waived statutory delays, and the trial court sentenced him that day to the mandatory term of life imprisonment at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The Defendant filed a timely Motion for Appeal on June 21, 2004. The trial court granted the motion on that day.
It is noted that, while the Defendant is represented by appointed counsel on appeal, he filed a Motion for Leave and Extension to File Pro Se Supplemental Appeal and Transcribe Voir Dire in this Court on March 17, 2005. On March 21, 2005, the Defendant’s request for a voir dire transcript was denied, but his request to file a “supplemental appeal,” was granted, returnable on April 20, 2005. As of this date, the Defendant has not filed a pro se brief in this matter. On appeal the Defendant has assigned two errors.
Stevens’ mother, Lucille Thompson (Thompson), testified that in March of 2002, he lived by himself in an apartment in Metairie, and she lived in Covington.
Thompson said that she spoke to her son on the telephone at least once each day, and he visited her at her Covington home at least once a month. Thompson testified that on Sunday, March 24, 2002, her son visited her at her home from 11:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. He then left her house in his automobile, a four-door Dodge Intrepid, for the 45 minute drive back to his apartment.
Thompson telephoned Stevens’ apartment between 6:30 and 8:30 p.m., but he did not answer. Thompson telephoned her son’s apartment over the next two days and did not get an answer. On Tuesday, March 26, 2002, she telephoned his employer and was told that her son had not shown up for work on Monday or Tuesday. Thompson testified that it was unusual for her son to miss work.
Later on Tuesday, after speaking with his employer, Thompson went to Stevens’ apartment to check on him. She noted that his car was not there. Neither Thompson nor an apartment complex manager was able to unlock the door. Thompson enlisted the help of Richard Lachney(Lachney), an air conditioning technician who worked at the apartment complex. Lachney unlocked the door and he and Thomspon entered the apartment.
Lachney testified that it was hot inside the apartment and there was a stale smell. The electric stove and the heater were both running, although it was not a cold day. Thompson testified that her son was ordinarily a neat person, but the apartment was messy. Lachney turned off the heater while Thompson turned off the stove. Lachney noted that there was a bed sheet covering a chair in the living room. He removed the sheet and saw Stevens’ body. Thompson testified that the body was black and swollen. Lachney called 9-1-1 and police officers arrived at the scene within fifteen minutes.
Detective Donald Clogher of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (JPSO) conducted the investigation at the apartment. Stevens’ body, which was in an advanced stage of decomposition, was sitting upright in a chair. The body was clothed in a red bathrobe, and was partially covered by a bed sheet. There was a rope around his neck.
Among the items collected as evidence from the apartment were the rope, the bed sheet, three cigarette butts, an article of women’s underwear, and photographs of a man dressed in women’s clothing. Lieutenant Steve Buras, commander of the JPSO Homicide Division, testified that he submitted the cigarette butts for DNA testing.
Detective Clogher was told that the victim’s vehicle was missing. He was unable to find keys to the car or the apartment at the scene. Lieutenant Grey Thurman of the JPSO Homicide Division testified that he entered the car in a national computer database of stolen vehicles.
Melanie Kemp (Kemp) was called as a trial witness by both the State and the defense. She testified that she became acquainted with the Defendant in early 2002. Kemp testified that she was the Defendant’s girlfriend. Both Kemp and the Defendant were “squatters,” meaning that they lived in abandoned buildings or with friends.
Kemp testified that the Defendant had told her about his friend “Charlie” in Metairie. The Defendant sometimes called him “Transvestite Charlie.” The Defendant occasionally told her that he was going to see Charlie in Metairie to take care of some business. Kemp and the Defendant both used cocaine and heroin on a regular basis, and she assumed that the Defendant’s “business” with Charlie had to do with drugs.
On Sunday, March 24, 2002, the Defendant told Kemp that he was going to Metairie. She next saw him at 10:00 that night in front of The Hideout, a bar on Decatur Street in the New Orleans French Quarter. The Defendant arrived in a car that she had not previously seen. When she asked him how he had obtained the car, the Defendant told her that someone who owed him money had given it to him in lieu of payment. Kemp got into the car with the Defendant, they bought cocaine from a man she knew only as “Bob” and spent the rest of the night riding around and using cocaine. Kemp testified that the back seat of the car was cluttered with clothing and other items.
On March 25, 2002, the Defendant and Kemp picked up the Defendant’s friends, Joni Schwartz (Schwartz) and Charles Wilkerson (Wilkerson). The Defendant wanted to pawn some of the items in the car and they tried several pawn shops. The Defendant, Schwartz and Wilkerson went into the shops, and Kemp stayed in the car. While driving around, the group bought cocaine and heroin from Bob and used the drugs. Kemp testified that while they were there, she heard the Defendant say that he had tied up “Charlie,” and that he was going back later to “finish him off.” The Defendant made some joking comments about Charlie, calling him a “fag.”
Schwartz testified that she was acquainted with the Defendant for a period of two and one-half months in 2002. She only knew him as “Smack.” She also knew Kemp, whom she called “Blue.” Schwartz testified that on March 24, 2002, the Defendant spoke to her about his Metairie homosexual friend. The Defendant did not tell her the man’s name or the nature of their relationship. The Defendant told Schwartz that this friend used cocaine. He planned to give the man a hit of heroin, telling him it was cocaine. While the man was under the influence of the drug, the Defendant would rob him.
Schwartz testified that she next saw the Defendant at 9:00 p.m. on March 24, 2002. She was in the French Quarter with her boyfriend, Wilkerson. The Defendant was driving a champagne colored four-door car that she had not seen before. She and Wilkerson got into the car, and the Defendant asked her to telephone “Bob,” their drug dealer. The Defendant had some items in the car that he wanted to give to Bob in exchange for heroin. There was a microwave oven on the back seat, and a large plastic container which held various “knickknacks.”
Schwartz telephoned Bob, and set up a meeting. Schwartz testified that while they waited for Bob to arrive, the Defendant told her and Wilkerson that he had hit a man with heroin, and the man “nodded out.” The Defendant said that he then tied up the man, put tape over his mouth, and put him in a bathtub. He also said that the car and the property inside it belonged to that man. The Defendant did not tell them the man’s name, but referred to him as “the guy.” When Bob arrived, the Defendant showed him a computer in the trunk of the car. Schwartz also saw a video cassette recorder (VCR). She did not know whether the Defendant received any drugs from Bob at that time. At about 10:00 p.m., the Defendant drove Schwartz and Wilkerson to her home on Marigny Street in New Orleans. They brought the microwave oven and the VCR into the house for safekeeping. They arranged to meet the next day to pawn those items, along with the computer. Schwartz testified that the Defendant picked up her and Wilkerson on Monday morning, March 25, 2002, accompanied by Kemp. Schwartz testified that they put the microwave oven and the VCR back into the car, and went to a pawn shop on Old Gentilly Road in New Orleans. They brought the three items into the shop. They were able to pawn the microwave and the VCR there, but not the computer. Schwartz testified she was the only one of the group with the proper form of identification, so she completed the transaction. They were able to pawn the computer at a pawn shop on Magazine Street. The police questioned her about the pawned items about a week later.
Kemp testified that when she saw the Defendant on Tuesday, March 26, 2002, he was still in possession of the car. He asked her if she wanted to leave the city with him. She agreed to the trip because she wanted to visit her family in New Mexico. The Defendant told her that a young couple would be going along with them and would share the cost of gasoline.
Kenneth Pawelski (Pawelski) testified that he arrived in New Orleans on March 23, 2002 with his girlfriend, Brandi Pace (Pace). He came to the city hoping to locate some friends. He met Kemp at Jackson Square. He saw Kemp again at the Drop-in Center on North Rampart Street, a free clinic for people living on the street. Pawelski also met the Defendant there. The Defendant told Pawelski that he had bought a car, and that he planned to travel west. Pawelski testified that he asked the Defendant to take him and Pace along because they wanted to go to California. The Defendant agreed to take them.
Kemp testified that they started west on the night of Wednesday, March 27, 2002. The next morning, the group entered Lafayette. The Defendant told the others that he wanted to visit his family, who lived there. Kemp testified that the Defendant told them all to call him “Dante Marcello” if they were stopped by police, since he had an extensive criminal record in that city.
Kemp said that the group got some food at a Taco Bell restaurant and stopped in a motel parking lot nearby to eat it. Soon thereafter, five police cars entered the parking lot and officers took them out of the car at gunpoint.
Corporal Randall Leger of the Lafayette Police Department testified that he was on patrol at 10:00 a.m. on March 28, 2002, when he saw a 1994 Dodge Intrepid. He made eye contact with one of the rear seat passengers. Based on the subject’s facial expression, he sensed something was not right. He requested that the car’s license plate number be run on the police computer system. He eventually lost sight of the vehicle. Corporal Leger received information that the car had been reported stolen, and that it was related to a homicide investigation. He put out a call to other officers to look for the vehicle.
Corporal Jessica Guidry, another patrol officer, spotted the vehicle 30 to 60 minutes after hearing the stolen vehicle call. It was in the rear parking lot of the Travel Host South Motel on the Northeast Evangeline Thruway. She reported the sighting to the police dispatcher and several additional officers responded. Corporal Guidry and other officers performed a felony takedown. The Defendant was the car’s driver. Kemp was the front seat passenger, and Pace and Pawelski were the back seat passengers. Corporal Guidry testified that each suspect was transported to the police station separately. Lieutenant Thurman testified that on March 28, 2002, the Lafayette Police Department notified him that Stevens’ car and its occupants had been taken into custody. Lieutenant Thurman and another officer drove to Lafayette that day. When Lieutenant Thurman arrived at the police station, he found the Defendant in an interview room, kicking and screaming that he wanted to know what was happening. Lieutenant Thurman explained to him that he was assigned to investigate the case. He told the Defendant that he was being charged with possession of the stolen vehicle, and that he was also being investigated with respect to Stevens’ death.
Lieutenant Thurman advised the Defendant of his Miranda1 rights using a standard rights form. The Defendant indicated that he wished to waive his rights and submit to an interview. Lieutenant Thurman questioned the Defendant and the interview was tape recorded and transcribed. A redacted version of the tape was played at trial.
During the interview the Defendant said that he had met Stevens for the first time three weeks earlier in front of The Corner Pocket, a gay bar in the French Quarter. Stevens, who was gay, initially mistook the Defendant for a prostitute. The Defendant learned that Stevens was a drug user and he began selling Stevens narcotics on a regular basis. The Defendant sometimes delivered cocaine to Stevens’ apartment, and had even injected Stevens with the drug. The Defendant said that he had seen evidence in the apartment that Stevens used inhalants.
The Defendant told Lieutenant Thurman that he had last seen Stevens in front of the Funky Butt lounge on North Rampart Street on Friday or Saturday morning. He gave Stevens his laundry to wash, along with some cocaine to compensate him. Stevens told the Defendant that he planned to wash the laundry at his mother’s house. The Defendant said that he was last at Stevens’ apartment on Thursday or Friday. Stevens’ computer was there at that time, as well as two televisions and a VCR.
The Defendant said that Schwartz called him to say that she was with Stevens, and that he wanted some heroin. The Defendant said that he had seen Schwartz with Stevens once or twice before. He did not know Stevens to use heroin, although Schwartz did. Stevens telephoned the Defendant at a pay phone near where he was living and offered to “rent” him his car for a week in exchange for some heroin. Schwartz and a young man whom the Defendant knew as “Mouse” delivered Stevens’ car to the Defendant sometime on Monday or Tuesday. The Defendant told Thurman that he picked up Kemp and his other two passengers after he took possession of the car. The young couple was hitchhiking and had agreed to help him pay for gasoline in exchange for a ride west.
Lieutenant Thurman testified that after the interview was completed, the Defendant gave him his written consent to obtain hair and blood samples and an oral swab. Lieutenant Thurman transported the Defendant to University Medical Center in Lafayette to have the blood sample drawn. The other samples were taken at the police station. Gregory Harrell (Harrell), an expert in forensic analysis of DNA, tested the three cigarette butts found at the crime scene against reference samples from Stevens and the Defendant. Harrell testified that one of the cigarette butts had DNA consistent with that of the Defendant. As they were leaving the hospital, the Defendant told Lieutenant Thurman that he wished to change his statement. Lieutenant Thurman told the Defendant that he still had the rights he had been advised of earlier. The Defendant submitted to, in a police car in the hospital parking lot, a second recorded interview which was transcribed. During that interview, the Defendant said that he had given Schwartz and her boyfriend, Wilkerson, a ride to a pawn shop. Schwartz told the Defendant that she had a VCR to pawn, but he did not see the VCR. He saw Schwartz carry a box into the pawn shop.
Lieutenant Thurman testified that he recovered Stevens’ Compaq computer from New Orleans Pawn Shop on Magazine Street. The pawn sheet showed that Schwartz had pawned the computer and a printer for $70. From Cash America Pawn on Gentilly Boulevard in New Orleans, Lieutenant Thurman recovered a Samsung microwave oven and a Panasonic VCR. The pawn sheet showed that those items were pawned by Schwartz for $40 on March 25, 2002.
Lieutenant Buras testified that Stevens’ car was towed to an enclosed garage at the Detective Bureau of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office. He obtained a search warrant for the vehicle. Among the items seized in the search was Stevens’ wallet, containing his Social Security card and driver’s license. Also recovered was a black pouch containing cotton dabbers, ten hypodermic needles, syringes, a measuring spoon, small plastic zip-lock bags, and various other items. A leather briefcase belonging to Stevens was found in the vehicle. A blue pouch inside the briefcase contained credit cards bearing Stevens’ name. Among the items recovered in the vehicle search was a piece of paper with handwritten names and corresponding telephone numbers. One of the names and numbers was for a person named Dani Claire Dailey (Dailey), a former girlfriend and now a friend of the Defendant’s. Dailey and another friend of the Defendant’s, Tara Russell (Russell), testified regarding their acquaintance with the Defendant and their lack of acquaintance with Stevens. They also provided their telephone numbers. A Bellsouth employee, Kathleen Sherer, testified, linking calls made from Stevens’ apartment on Sunday March 24, 2002 to Dailey and Russell, whose telephone was in the name of her boyfriend, Q. Ross, friends of the Defendant’s.
Dr. Karen Ross, an expert in forensic pathology, employed by the Jefferson Parish Coroner’s Office, testified that Dr. Gillen Rudner had performed an autopsy on Stevens, but that Dr. Rudner was now living in another state. She reviewed the autopsy protocol, along with the autopsy and scene photographs in preparation for her testimony. Dr. Ross testified that Dr. Rudner made note of a ligature wrapped three times around Stevens’ neck. Upon removal of the ligature, Dr. Rudner found that there was an abraded furrow around the neck. Dr. Rudner determined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. Dr. Ross explained that a ligature such as a rope was placed around the neck and cut off the blood or oxygen to the brain. Dr. Ross testified that a slight maximal suspension point behind the right ear made it likely that the perpetrator was standing behind Stevens, and the ligature was slightly pulled up behind the right ear. Dr. Ross testified that the toxicology report showed Stevens had morphine in his blood at the time of death. She explained that morphine can be derived from heroin, and that a finding of morphine in the blood is consistent with someone being given heroin.
Dr. Rudner classified Stevens’ death as a homicide. Dr. Ross concurred with the finding, saying the death was consistent with a homicidal ligature strangulation.
The Defendant testified at trial that, at the time of his arrest, he had been in New Orleans for six to eight months. He lived in various locations, and occasionally squatted in vacant buildings. He was a drug dealer, and Bob supplied him with the cocaine and heroin that he sold. The Defendant also used drugs.
About three or four weeks before his arrest, he met Stevens outside a bar in the French Quarter. He began selling Stevens cocaine on a regular basis. Their usual meeting place was in front of the Funky Butt lounge on North Rampart Street. The Defendant also brought drugs to Stevens at his Metairie apartment. The Defendant testified that he was at Stevens’ apartment on five separate occasions and each time he brought the victim drugs. He sometimes injected Stevens with cocaine.
The Defendant testified that the last time he saw Stevens was in front of the Funky Butt on the morning of March 23 or 24, 2002. Stevens was going to wash clothes, and offered to wash the Defendant’s clothes too. The Defendant gave Stevens some articles of clothing, and they parted company. Sometime later, the Defendant saw Schwartz and a man he knew only as “Mouse” in the victim’s car. They told the Defendant that they needed some cocaine for Stevens. The Defendant obtained the cocaine and gave it to Schwartz. On another occasion, Schwartz telephoned the Defendant and asked him to obtain heroin, saying it was for Stevens. The Defendant testified that he did not believe her, as he had not known Stevens to use heroin. He nevertheless got her the heroin.
The Defendant said that Schwartz showed up later, offering to rent him Stevens’ car in exchange for heroin. After some resistance, the Defendant agreed to the arrangement. He assumed Schwartz was acting on Stevens’ behalf. Schwartz and Mouse turned over the car to the Defendant. Schwartz and Wilkerson later asked the Defendant to drive them to Gene’s Po-Boys to meet with Bob. They had two boxes containing something they wanted to give Bob in exchange for drugs. The Defendant agreed to give them a ride, and they put the boxes in the car’s trunk. The Defendant testified that he did not know what was inside the boxes. While the Defendant stayed inside the car, Schwartz and Wilkerson showed Bob what they wanted to trade. The Defendant heard Bob say he could not take the items.
The Defendant testified that he convinced Bob to give Schwartz and Wilkerson some drugs with the understanding that they would pay him the next day. Bob agreed. The Defendant planned to take his friends to pawn shops the next day to pawn whatever was inside the boxes. The Defendant then drove them back to Schwartz’ house. The Defendant picked up his girlfriend, Kemp, and the two smoked marijuana together. They rode around and talked until early morning. Then they picked up Schwartz and Wilkerson.
The Defendant testified that he drove Schwartz and Wilkerson to two pawn shops, where they disposed of the two boxes. They met Bob later in the day and obtained drugs from him. They drove to the Lakefront, where they used the drugs which they had bought. The Defendant testified that he never spoke of a plan to shoot up a man with dope, or of tying up someone. The Defendant said that he and Kemp met Pace and Pawelski in the French Quarter and learned that the couple wanted to go to Sacramento, California. He offered them a ride. They set out late on the night of March 27, 2002. They spent part of the night at a rest stop outside of Lafayette. In the morning they drove into Lafayette. The Defendant testified that he intended to visit his mother, who lived there. First, they stopped at a Taco Bell restaurant and bought some food. He parked in a motel parking lot in order to eat. Soon thereafter, about ten police cars converged on the parking lot and officers ordered the Defendant and his companions to get out of the car.
The Defendant testified that he was transported to the Lafayette police station, where he was placed in an interrogation room. When Lieutenant Thurman arrived, he asked the Defendant if he wanted to talk, and the Defendant agreed. The Defendant testified that he spoke to Thurman freely, and of his own volition. The Defendant denied that he injected Stevens with heroin on March 24, 2002, or that he strangled Stevens with a rope.
By this assignment of error the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his mistrial motion after a State witness, Kemp, testified about his criminal record. More particularly, on the first day of trial, Kemp testified that the Defendant told her and the other occupants of the car that, if they were stopped by police in Lafayette, they should say that his name was Dante Marcello, because “he had a long record in Lafayette.” When Kemp’s testimony concluded, two more witnesses testified before the trial recessed for the day. At the beginning of the second day of trial, the Defendant moved for a mistrial, and the trial court denied the motion. The trial judge further stated that she would admonish the jury to disregard any evidence of other crimes.At the outset, we find that the Defendant’s mistrial motion was not timely made. State v. Broaden, 99-2124, p. 17 (La. 2/21/01), 780 So.2d 349, 361, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 884, 122 S.Ct. 192, 151 L.Ed.2d 135 (2001). Counsel did not object to the testimony at issue at the time it was given, or even at the conclusion of Kemp’s testimony. He waited until the beginning of the following day to move for a mistrial. Official Revision Comment (b) to Article 770 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides, “A failure to move for a mistrial is a waiver of the error, since this article requires a motion by the Defendant.” See, State v. Broaden, supra., in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the defendant’s objection to the elicitation of other crimes evidence by the State was untimely where the defense attorney waited until after the witness at issue left the stand, and the jurors were removed for a lunch break. The Broaden court found, in circumstances similar to those here, that the Defendant had failed to preserve his claim for appeal. Since the Defendant in this case waived the error, we need not address the merits of his claim. However, we point out that, even if addressed on its merits, this assignment of error does not warrant reversal of the conviction.
Generally, evidence of other crimes or bad acts committed by a criminal defendant is inadmissible at trial due to the risk of grave prejudice to the defendant. State v. Williams, 01-1007, p. 7 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2/26/02), 811 So.2d 1026, 1030.
Two procedural articles address the remedies for admission of such evidence. La. C.Cr.P. art. 770 provides, in pertinent part:
Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to: . . . .
(2) Another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible[.]
La. C.Cr.P. art. 771 provides, in pertinent part:
In the following cases, upon the request of the defendant or the state, the court shall promptly admonish the jury to disregard a remark or comment made during the trial, or in argument within the hearing of the jury, when the remark is irrelevant or immaterial and of such a nature that it might create prejudice against the defendant, or the state, in the mind of the jury:
. . . .
(2) When the remark or comment is made by a witness or person other than the judge, district attorney, or a court official, regardless of whether the remark or comment is within the scope of Article 770. In such cases, on motion of the defendant, the court may grant a mistrial if it is satisfied that an admonition is not sufficient to assure the defendant a fair trial.
As a general rule, article 770 does not apply to testimony by a State witness, since a witness is not considered a “court official” for purposes of the article. But an impermissible reference to another crime deliberately elicited by the prosecutor is imputable to the State, and therefore triggers the rule mandating a mistrial. State v. Marsalis, 04-827, p. 6 (La. App. 5th Cir. 4/26/05), 902 So.2d 1081, 1085. In the instant case, there is no showing that the prosecutor purposefully elicited the complained of response from the witness. In fact, defense counsel stated that he did not believe the prosecutor had intentionally elicited the testimony. Therefore, article 770 is not applicable.
Further, Kemp’s testimony was not grounds for a mistrial under Article 771. The trial court admonished the jury concerning the remark and there is no showing that the admonishment was not sufficient for such a minor reference. In this instance, Kemp did not refer to any specific offenses alleged to have been committed by the Defendant. Rather, her testimony was a general reference to the Defendant’s statement that he had a “long record.” A mistrial is a drastic remedy, warranted only if a comment or remark results in substantial prejudice to the accused. State v. Broaden, 99-2124 at p. 16, (La. 2/21/01), 780 So.2d at 360, fn. 5; State v. Marsalis, supra. The Defendant did not suffer substantial prejudice based on the challenged testimony. The Defendant himself gave extensive testimony regarding his criminal convictions. Moreover, he gave considerably more testimony regarding his use and sale of narcotics than did any of the State’s witnesses. Therefore, we find no merit in this assignment of error.
By this assignment of error, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in excluding photographs of the victim because they would have supported his defense. More particularly, the Defendant complains that the trial court’s exclusion of photographs of the victim wearing women’s lingerie and clothing violated his constitutional right to put on a defense. In the search of Stevens’ apartment, investigating officers recovered several Polaroid photographs depicting the victim wearing women’s garments. Some of the photographs portrayed the victim in suggestive poses, with his buttocks exposed. At the beginning of trial, the State filed a Motion in Limine, asking the court to exclude the photographs. Defense counsel argued that he planned to show, as part of his case, that the victim’s death was the result of autoerotic asphyxiation. He submitted that the photographs would support that defense by showing the victim had “certain perverted sexual preferences and so forth.”
The State countered that there was no evidence that the victim was involved in autoeroticism, and that the photographs were irrelevant. The trial judge decided to defer her ruling on the matter until such time as the defense sought to introduce the photos. During the cross-examination of State’s witness Detective Clogher, the trial judge viewed the photographs out of the jury’s presence. She ruled that she would exclude those photos that depicted nudity and/or suggestive poses, as they had no probative value. The trial judge said that she would allow defense counsel to show the remaining two or three photos to the detective for identification purposes only. She ordered counsel not to publish any photos to the jury at that time. Detective Clogher thereafter identified those photos as the ones found at the victim’s apartment.
Near the end of trial, the Defendant identified Stevens as the subject of the Polaroid photographs. Defense counsel again sought to introduce and publish the photos. The State objected to admission of the photographs, arguing that they were irrelevant. Out of the jury’s presence, defense counsel argued that the photos were clearly taken by someone with whom the victim shared a very personal relationship. Counsel wished to use the photographs to support the argument that someone other than the Defendant (such as the person who took the photos) was in a position to commit the murder.
The trial judge ruled that she would exclude all photographs that involved “various leg shots, rear end, buttock shots, lingerie shots, and stockings that I find offensive.” She further ruled that she would allow the defense to introduce only one photo that depicted the victim in women’s clothing, one which did not depict an obscene position or nudity. The judge reasoned, Well, anytime you have a victim’s home where there’s a body recovered, photographs of the victim in any clothing doesn’t substantiate that somebody else is the murderer. And these photos I know, for the Record (sic), are Polaroid, the type of camera – I don’t know what they’re called – that shoots out the photograph. They appear very old. They are scratched. They are scraped. They smell of age, and the condition of the photographs alone in the state that they’re in depict them to be old. Therefore, I don’t think they have any proximity to the time frame of this murder.
Defense counsel thereafter introduced one photograph, Defense Exhibit 15A. The Defendant now complains that the trial court abused her discretion in failing to allow all of the Polaroid photographs to be admitted.
Both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 16 of the Louisiana Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to present a defense. However, this right does not require a trial court to permit the introduction of evidence that is irrelevant or has so little probative value that it is substantially outweighed by other legitimate considerations in the administration of justice. La. C.E. art. 403; State v. Mosby, 595 So.2d 1135, 1138 (La. 1992); State v. Pugh, 02-171, p. 17 (La. App. 5th Cir. 10/16/02), 831 So.2d 341, 351. Relevant evidence is defined by La. C.E. art. 401 as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. La. C.E. art. 402. In general, photographs which illustrate any fact, shed light upon any fact or issue in the case, or are relevant to describe the person, place, or thing depicted, are admissible, assuming that their probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. State v. Battaglia, 03-692, p. 10 (La. App. 5th Cir. 11/25/03), 861 So.2d 704, 710, writ denied, 04-1701 (La. 4/29/05), 901 So.2d 1058. An appellate court generally places great weight upon the trial court’s ruling regarding the relevancy of evidence, and such a determination will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Battaglia, 03-692 at p. 10, 861 So.2d at 711.
In this case we find that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in finding that the prejudicial effect of the excluded photographs outweighed their probative value. As she noted, it is apparent from their appearance that the Polaroid photos were not taken near in time to the murder. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that they might have been used to show the photographer was a possible perpetrator has no merit.
The Defendant’s argument that the photographs were necessary to support his claim that Stevens caused his own death through autoerotic asphyxiation also lacks merit. Dr. Ross explained that autoerotic asphyxiation is an act by which a person applies a ligature or other mechanism to himself to cut off his blood supply for a sufficient time to enhance an orgasm. In her opinion, it was extremely unlikely that the victim’s injury was self-inflicted in that way. She stated that, in cases of autoerotic asphyxiation, the subject typically puts padding around the ligature so as to avoid leaving marks on the neck. The doctor also felt that the number of loops around the victim’s neck was not consistent with self-inflicted asphyxiation. Normally, one who engages in autoerotic asphyxiation leaves himself some escape mechanism. Also, there is usually some type of pornographic material nearby in cases of autoerotic asphyxiation. That was not the case here.
Finally, the doctor said she would not expect to find a sheet covering the entire body in a case of self-inflicted asphyxiation.
The court’s suppression of some of the photographs did not prevent the Defendant from proceeding with his chosen defenses. Through the one photograph which the trial court allowed, he was able to show that Stevens was a cross-dresser. The Defendant testified that he saw the victim dressed in women’s clothing on at least one occasion. There was also testimony that a piece of women’s underwear was found in the victim’s apartment. Thus, we find no error in the trial court ruling that excluded the prejudicial photographs and we find no merit in the Defendant’s argument that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense. This assignment of error has no merit.
The record was reviewed for errors patent. La. C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v.
Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1990). The review reveals no errors. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction for second degree murder and his sentence to life in prison at hard labor.