## Facts

- Percy Davis was charged with two counts of first-degree murder arising from armed robberies at convenience-type stores in Shreveport on consecutive nights, June 29–30, 1990.
- On June 22, 1990, Davis purchased a .25 caliber automatic pistol from a pawnshop using another person’s credit card; he claimed he had found the card.
- Ballistics linked that pistol to multiple robberies and to both homicides at issue; Davis told police he never loaned the pistol and kept control of it during the relevant period.
- June 29, 1990 (Circle K): store employee Mark Sanchez was killed around 2:00 a.m.; the prosecution’s case was largely circumstantial, relying heavily on the ballistics link to Davis’s pistol and his continued possession of it.
- June 30, 1990 (Fat’s Exxon): owner Calvin Moore was killed around midnight during a robbery; the prosecution presented direct evidence, including a surveillance videotape showing Davis shooting Moore, shooting at Moore’s wife, and committing the robbery, plus the wife’s eyewitness identification.
- Davis admitted robbing and shooting Moore but denied killing Sanchez.
- The two counts were joined and tried together in a single capital trial; the jury convicted Davis on both counts and recommended death on each, and the trial court imposed two death sentences.

## Issues

1. Whether joinder of the two first-degree murder counts in a single capital trial was improper or unfairly prejudicial.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove Davis committed the Sanchez murder beyond a reasonable doubt where the proof was primarily circumstantial.
3. Whether evidentiary rulings admitting key proof (including ballistics evidence and the Moore store videotape) were erroneous or rendered the joint trial unfair given the differing strength of proof on each count.
4. Whether the statutory aggravating circumstances supporting the death penalty were proven and whether the death sentences were excessive, arbitrary, or disproportionate.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed Davis’s convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and affirmed both death sentences.
- The court held the offenses were properly tried together because they were closely related in time, place, and method (consecutive-night convenience-store robberies involving the same firearm), and joinder did not deprive Davis of a fair verdict determination.
- Applying the Jackson v. Virginia standard and Louisiana’s circumstantial-evidence rule, the court found the Sanchez verdict supported by evidence linking Davis’s gun to the killing and his asserted exclusive control over the weapon.
- The court found the Moore verdict strongly supported by the videotape, eyewitness testimony, and Davis’s admissions.
- The court rejected challenges to the admissibility and probative value of the videotape and ballistics evidence and concluded the difference between direct and circumstantial proof did not itself require severance.
- In mandatory capital review, the court found the felony-murder aggravating circumstance (killing during armed robbery) established for each murder and upheld the death sentences as not arbitrary or disproportionate.

## Legal Principles

- Joinder of offenses is permissible when offenses are sufficiently connected and a joint trial does not prevent a fair determination of guilt; courts consider whether evidence of each offense would be admissible in separate trials and whether prejudice outweighs judicial efficiency and probative value.
- Under Jackson v. Virginia, appellate review asks whether any rational factfinder could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
- In circumstantial-evidence cases, the factfinder may convict only if the evidence, viewed as a whole, excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
- Relevant evidence with proper foundation (e.g., authenticated surveillance video and ballistics comparisons) may be admitted when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- In capital cases, death eligibility requires proof of at least one statutory aggravating circumstance; appellate review also considers whether the sentence is excessive or disproportionate in comparable cases.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a joint capital trial for two robbery-murders committed on consecutive nights with the same firearm, found the evidence sufficient for both convictions (circumstantial as to Sanchez and direct as to Moore), approved admission of key forensic and video evidence, and affirmed two death sentences based on proven felony-murder aggravators and proportionality review.


State v. Davis, 637 So. 2d 1012 (La. 1994)