State of Louisiana v. Don C. Woods

Woods · Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit · March 19, 2026 · No. 2025-KA-0526

Summary

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed Don C. Woods’ conviction for obstruction of justice. The court held that the evidence, including video recordings and Woods’ admission that he removed and discarded the weapon, was sufficient for a rational jury to find the requisite intent to distort a potential or future criminal investigation under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:130.1.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Rachael D. Johnson; Sandra Cabrina Jenkins; Karen K. Herman
Jurisdiction
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit
Decision date
March 19, 2026
Docket number
2025-KA-0526
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed his conviction for obstruction of justice after a jury trial. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence under Jackson v. Virginia, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and asking whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court deferred to the jury's rational credibility determinations, weighing of evidence, and drawing of inferences.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Don C. Woods v. State of Louisiana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedureevidencestatutory interpretationstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate litigationevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to prove that Woods committed obstruction of justice by removing and discarding the weapon with the specific intent to distort the results of a potential or future criminal investigation.

Holdings

  1. The evidence was sufficient to support Woods's obstruction-of-justice conviction because he knowingly removed and discarded the murder weapon with the specific intent to distort the results of a potential or future criminal investigation.

Key quotations

The defendant must also have tampered with evidence ‘with the specific intent of distorting the results’ of a criminal investigation. (8)
The directive that the evidence be viewed “in the light most favorable to the prosecution” requires that deference be made to the trier of fact’s rational credibility calls, evidence weighing, and inference drawing. (9)
The jury could reasonably determine that Defendant had the specific intent to distort the results of a “potential” “future” criminal investigation because Defendant removed and dumped the weapon immediately after the victim’s murder and did not admit to doing so until after he was arrested and questioned by the police. (10)

Factual background

After an altercation, Woods struck the victim with a sword taken from the victim's shopping cart, causing a fatal torso wound. Video evidence showed Woods leaving the scene with the sword, and Woods later admitted that he discarded it after driving away. The jury could infer that Woods removed and concealed the weapon intending to distort a potential or future criminal investigation.

Procedural history

A grand jury indicted Woods for second degree murder and obstruction of justice. The jury convicted him of obstruction of justice but could not reach a verdict on the murder charge, resulting in a mistrial on that count. Woods later pleaded guilty to amended manslaughter and received concurrent ten-year sentences for manslaughter and obstruction of justice. He appealed only the obstruction-of-justice conviction, arguing that the evidence failed to establish specific intent.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…