Cesar Laurean's Trial

[GeekyGirl]

How can they determine she had the card on her person and not in her wallet which could've been (hypothetically) in an unlocked car when she stopped by his house?

Good question... not sure what the answer is. My guess (and I have absolutely no case law to back this up) is that if the murder facilitated the aquisition of her property, and it occurred at or shortly after the time of the murder, it would still be considered robbery, i.e. he was able to take stuff from her car bc she wasn't alive to protest. Again, MOO.

 

[Topsail Girl]

I don't think so... If she left Dunham's, went to the ATM, the bus station and then CL's, the only time she would have been on 24W before the main gate would be between the ATM withdrawal and the bus station. MOO

Ahh I need to refresh my brain with my yahoo map LOL :dance:

 

[panthera]

Good question... not sure what the answer is. My guess (and I have absolutely no case law to back this up) is that if the murder facilitated the aquisition of her property, and it occurred at or shortly after the time of the murder, it would still be considered robbery, i.e. he was able to take stuff from her car bc she wasn't alive to protest. Again, MOO.

You have made it a lot clearer! So basically, the theory is if she hadn't been murdered he wouldn't have had access to her property, i.e. the ATM car, her car, etc.

 

[GeekyGirl]

What about her being at the Christmas party, if true?

Even if that were true, I can't see any reason for her to have been east of the main gate once she left Dunham's. Coming from the bus station she would have gone through the gate before reaching the overpass, and coming off (if she was headed to CL's) she would have driven over the overpass and been further W on 24 then where the phone was found. I suppose she could have come out the Piney Green Gate, but that's pretty unlikely. It would have added several miles to her trip, as it's not the most direct route. There were some people who thought maybe she threw it from the overpass, but she would have to have incredible aim, not to mention strength, to throw it out the passenger window, over the retaining wall and have it land on the side of the road. Not impossible, but highly improbable.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Ahh I need to refresh my brain with my yahoo map LOL :dance:

No worries I only know all this because I drive that road every day. I actually lived pretty close to Dunham's when all this happened.

 

[GeekyGirl]

You have made it a lot clearer! So basically, the theory is if she hadn't been murdered he wouldn't have had access to her property, i.e. the ATM car, her car, etc.

Exactly! Or at least I think exactly... again, I'd have to do some more research but I'm pretty sure that's the legal foundation behind it.

 

[panthera]

Exactly! Or at least I think exactly... again, I'd have to do some more research but I'm pretty sure that's the legal foundation behind it.

:doh: :doh: :doh:

article from April 22, 2008

"Maria did take money out that day that has not been recovered. Investigators believe Laurean robbed Lauterbach’s dead body of the cash. That is where the robbery with a dangerous weapon charge and subsequent indictment comes in.
It is all about “continuous transaction,” get to know that term, you will hear it a lot during the trial.
One of Laurean’s indictments state he took Lauterbach’s cash and Fort Sill National Bank debit card Dec. 14."

http://onslowcrime.encblogs.com/?p=123

 

[GeekyGirl]

:doh: :doh: :doh:

article from April 22, 2008

"Maria did take money out that day that has not been recovered. Investigators believe Laurean robbed Lauterbach’s dead body of the cash. That is where the robbery with a dangerous weapon charge and subsequent indictment comes in.
It is all about “continuous transaction,” get to know that term, you will hear it a lot during the trial.
One of Laurean’s indictments state he took Lauterbach’s cash and Fort Sill National Bank debit card Dec. 14."

http://onslowcrime.encblogs.com/?p=123

LOL yup... good ol' Lindell Kay. He took a lot of slack but IMO he did a good job of reporting on this case, and seemed to have an inside line on the investigation. I miss the Off the Cuff blog... always some good debate there.

 

[Topsail Girl]

ok y'all I'm really confused over this felony murder and first degree murder thing. There is no video but I plan to email Amanda and ask her. Today Sherita McNeil was convicted for first degree murder in the death of her toddler. According to Amanda's report, she was also convicted of felony murder because she was charged and found guilty of felony child abuse, but she was not guilty of premeditation, malice or aforethought. She faces a mandatory life sentence as she should. Am I understanding correctly that because she was committing felony child abuse and as a result of that her son died so she is also guilty of felony murder?? It says she was found guilty of first degree murder at the link. Amanda did a live shot from the court house as this was breaking news and again there is no video. Here is the link - tell me what you think.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8159280/

I'm curious because of this whole felony murder thing with Cesar. I will let you know what I find out from Amanda but she is at home with her family and I will just wait till tomorrow to call her or email her.

 

[panthera]

ok y'all I'm really confused over this felony murder and first degree murder thing. There is no video but I plan to email Amanda and ask her. Today Sherita McNeil was convicted for first degree murder in he death of her toddler. According to Amanda's report, ,she was also convicted of felony murder because she was charged and found guilty of felony child abuse, but she was not guilty of premeditation, malice or aforethought. She faces a mandatory life sentence as she should. Am I understand correctly that because she was committing felony child abuse and a result of that her son died so she is also guilty of felony murder?? It says she was founf guilty of first degree murder. Amanda did a live shot from the court house as this was breaking news and again there is no video. Here is the link - tell me what you think.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8159280/

I'm curious because of this whole felony murder thing with Cesar

Before today I always thought felony murder was along the same lines as what you posted about this other case - that is if a person dies while in the commission of another felony crime against them it can be (1st degree) felony murder. I'd never heard of the "continuous transaction" aspect that was argued in Cesar's case. Previously I thought taking the money and ATM from Maria after she was killed would be similar to robbing a corpse. :waitasec: MOO

 

[Topsail Girl]

dang it - I lost my post. Robbing of a corpse - I guess that depends on when he took her card and money. The whole "short period of time" gets me. Supposedly she died on the 14th and he attempted to use her card (that we KNOW of) on the 24th - is that a short period of time???

M/E said that this little boy had been abused over several months. The day he died he was considered felony abused and died as a result of that abuse. But his mother in abusing him that day was not "aware" or did not "predict" that he would die from that felony abuse.

If Cesar hit Maria with that crow bar and he saw her immediately fall he was aware that if he didn't get help she would die. So what did he do? Did he wait till she was dead and right after (within minutes) take her money and card? Or did her store her till he could bury her and then in the process find her ATM card and money in her pants when he took them off or was it when he went to take her car back to the bus station? Who knows, but what by the law is considered a short period of time.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Before today I always thought felony murder was along the same lines as what you posted about this other case - that is if a person dies while in the commission of another felony crime against them it can be (1st degree) felony murder. I'd never heard of the "continuous transaction" aspect that was argued in Cesar's case. Previously I thought taking the money and ATM from Maria after she was killed would be similar to robbing a corpse. :waitasec: MOO

It is a confusing thing... And you're correct in that most states you actually have to be willfully committing the felony, but NC law is nothing if not funky. This link has some of the relevant NC supreme court decisions:

http://www.ncdistrictattorney.org/traininghandout/caselawbank/HOMICIDE%20_Felony%20Murder_.pdf

The part where NC differs is that the Supreme Court has upheld that it doesn't matter when the intent to commit the felony was formed as long as the felony and the homicide were part of a "continuous transaction" meaning that A happened, then B happened within a short period of time and that A and B were "interrelated". Clear as mud, yes?


Topsail girl, there's something about the "evidence being interpreted in the best light for the state" or something to that effect when it comes to the charges a jury is allowed to deliberate on, I'll try and clarify that.

Basically though, I don't think they're implying that the robbery occurred when he used the ATM card, but the fact that he had it implies that he took it from her in the first place. There is, I believe, a separate charge for when he actually tried to get money out if the ATM.

 

[GeekyGirl]

This is also a good example of the case law concerning the taking if property as an afterthought... Read section III.

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2003/unpub/020810-1.htm

It's an unpublished opinion (couldn't find the final ruling) but shows the thought process at least and cites applicable case law.

 

[panthera]

dang it - I lost my post. Robbing of a corpse - I guess that depends on when he took her card and money. The whole "short period of time" gets me. Supposedly she died on the 14th and he attempted to use her card (that we KNOW of) on the 24th - is that a short period of time???

M/E said that this little boy had been abused over several months. The day he died he was considered felony abused and died as a result of that abuse. But his mother in abusing him that day was not "aware" or did not "predict" that he would die from that felony abuse.

If Cesar hit Maria with that crow bar and he saw her immediately fall he was aware that if he didn't get help she would die. So what did he do? Did he wait till she was dead and right after (within minutes) take her money and card? Or did her store her till he could bury her and then in the process find her ATM card and money in her pants when he took them off or was it when he went to take her car back to the bus station? Who knows, but what by the law is considered a short period of time.

I'm not understanding the timeline on the "continuous transaction" either, except for the cash that she still would have had on her after purchasing the bus ticket, which is missing. The problem I have with that, though, is when did Cesar take it (assuming he did) - was it immediately after she died or did he find it in her car days later? Was that cash used to purchase the items at Lowe's? It's only speculation as to what happened to it, so the other source of money, the ATM withdrawl comes into play and we know that wasn't until 10 days later. I'd love to be in the jury room when they are discussing this! :waitasec: MOO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I just got in from a fantastic vacation. I sure have missed all of you.

I have quickly tried to catch up and I am sure I missed some things. So please bear with me.

But my opinion is there is enough reasonable doubt to drive a Mack truck through in this case. If it was not for Maria being pregnant, I think the jury would either hang or acquit. But since she was ....I think the jury will render their verdict based on emotions rather than the evidence entered imo. Dewey Hudson definitely needs to retire.

From what I have read there is really no forensic evidence tying Cesar to this crime nor can the ME even determine for sure if the one blow was caused by the crowbar. I was floored to read that Cesar's DNA could be ruled out on the crowbar BUT of all people, Christina's couldn't be. WOW!

And I find it odd that even when Cesar spent Maria's money after her death he bought Christina something instead of buying something for himself.

All the credibility/mental issues about Maria is not bashing the victim imo. The jury should know if the victim may have had mental or serious credibility problems to even half way understand the mind set of Maria to even begin to understand why she would go to Laurean's home right out of the blue. From what I have read thus far there was no contact between Cesar and Maria. That was another Wow for me to learn. IMO, it goes to premeditation or the lack of...

And I have had questions Christina's involvement from day one of this case. The entire thing never passed the smell test when it came to her. She had as much motive to harm Maria as Cesar did and throwing the baby clothes in with Maria sounds more like a vindictive woman than what a male would do imo. I must admit I truly feel now she may have been the one that did this and Cesar covered up for her.

Guilty or not he knew he was the one that was going to be blamed for this and arrested.

I remember when he was arrested he said he wanted proof to show that he had done this and other than innuendos and weak circumstantial evidence there is none that I can see.

It shows desperation on the side of the Prosecutor to include the felony murder. NC is the first state that I have heard of that seems to be able to pull after the fact crimes and make into one. I could understand if Cesar murdered her in the commission of a robbery but I don't think there will be a juror there who thinks that was his motive. He took her money after she died and did not use the card until after she had already died.

Instead of answering the number one question of why she would go there that I had hoped would be answered, neither the defense or state doesnt seem to have a clue why she would do such a thing. It defies all logic and commonsense, imo. To me it shows Maria was totally irrational that day and in a heightened state of mind.

IMO

 

[panthera]

(respectfully snipped for space)

Basically though, I don't think they're implying that the robbery occurred when he used the ATM card, but the fact that he had it implies that he took it from her in the first place. There is, I believe, a separate charge for when he actually tried to get money out if the ATM.

Thanks for all the information ~ it has been very helpful. You're correct, there is another charge for the ATM withdrawl.

 

[Topsail Girl]

GeekyGirl - I think I love you LOL

 

[GeekyGirl]

No problem as to what I was saying earlier... In order for the judge to include first degree murder under the felony murder rule, he has to believe that the jury, if they viewed all of the state's evidence in the most favorable light (meaning they totally believe it), would reasonably find him guilty of the crime.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Lol... I'm exactly what my name suggests, a total geek. I LOVE this kind of research.

 

[panthera]

I just got in from a fantastic vacation. I sure have missed all of you.

I have quickly tried to catch up and I am sure I missed some things. So please bear with me.

But my opinion is there is enough reasonable doubt to drive a Mack truck through in this case. If it was not for Maria being pregnant, I think the jury would either hang or acquit. But since she was ....I think the jury will render their verdict based on emotions rather than the evidence entered imo. Dewey Hudson definitely needs to retire.

From what I have read there is really no forensic evidence tying Cesar to this crime nor can the ME even determine for sure if the one blow was caused by the crowbar. I was floored to read that Cesar's DNA could be ruled out on the crowbar BUT of all people, Christina's couldn't be. WOW!

(respectfully snipped for space)

IMO

Welcome back!!! Hopefully the jury will be able to put emotions aside, weigh the evidence, or lack thereof, and reach the appropriate verdict. Did you happen to read today's posts here regarding testimony that Maria was seen at the Christmas party? If that wasn't shocking! The crowbar made an appearance in court again today when it was handed to the Special Agent who was testifying for the defense, after she gave a physical description of Christina and stated they were about the same size. You did miss some moments.