## Facts

- Danny Winston was prosecuted by the State of Louisiana for the shooting death of Sydonna Morris, his live-in girlfriend, in St. John the Baptist Parish.
- Two minors, identified in the record by initials (J.E. and M.F.), were in the home at the time of the shooting and testified as prosecution witnesses.
- The minors testified that Winston sent them into another room shortly before the gunshot.
- The minors heard a loud “boom” shortly after Winston went into Morris’s bedroom.
- After the noise, Winston spoke to the children and indicated Morris had shot herself; the defense later relied in part on a suicide theory.
- The State presented forensic and circumstantial evidence that the fatal gunshot was not consistent with a self-inflicted shooting and that the death resulted from a homicide.
- Before trial, the prosecution prepared the child witnesses by reviewing the questions that would be asked, including that they would be asked to identify Winston in court.
- As part of that preparation, the children practiced standing and pointing to where Winston would be seated in the courtroom.
- At trial, both minors acknowledged during cross-examination that the prosecution had conducted this practice with them.
- A jury found Winston guilty of second degree murder, and the trial court imposed the mandatory life sentence at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
- Winston appealed, arguing that the children’s testimony (including the in-court identification) was improperly influenced and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecution’s pretrial preparation of the minor witnesses—reviewing anticipated questions and practicing where to point during an in-court identification—so tainted the identification/testimony that due process required reversal.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the minor witnesses’ testimony about the events surrounding the shooting, where the defense attacked reliability and consistency.
3. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution under Jackson v. Virginia, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Winston committed second degree murder rather than suicide or accident.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Fifth Circuit affirmed Winston’s second degree murder conviction and mandatory life sentence.
- The court rejected the claim that the prosecution’s preparation of the child witnesses (including practicing the in-court identification) required reversal; the preparation was exposed through cross-examination and went to credibility and weight for the jury.
- The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the minors to testify; disputes about inconsistencies and reliability were for the jury to evaluate.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude Winston committed second degree murder, and the jury was entitled to reject the suicide theory.
- The court also conducted its standard patent-error review and found no reversible error on the face of the record.

## Legal Principles

- Under Jackson v. Virginia, an appellate court asks whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Louisiana appellate courts generally leave credibility calls to the jury; conflicts in testimony and claimed inconsistencies typically affect weight, not admissibility.
- Trial courts have discretion to allow child witnesses to testify when the child demonstrates an ability to understand questions, recall events, and distinguish truth from falsehood; challenges to a child’s reliability ordinarily are handled through cross-examination and argument.
- Pretrial witness preparation is not automatically improper; telling a witness what topics will be covered and preparing the witness for courtroom procedure may be permitted, and the fact of preparation may be used by the defense to challenge credibility.
- An in-court identification is not automatically excluded because a witness practiced identifying the defendant’s expected location; absent a showing of unfairness requiring exclusion, the jury may consider the identification along with the circumstances of preparation.

## Conclusion

State v. Winston held that a second degree murder conviction could stand where the jury heard child-witness testimony and forensic/circumstantial proof supporting homicide, and where the defense was able to cross-examine the minors about the prosecution’s pretrial coaching and practice of an in-court identification; the court treated the preparation as a credibility matter for the jury and found the evidence sufficient under Jackson.


State v. Winston, 844 So. 2d 184 (2003)