State of Louisiana v. Richard Refund Spencer

No. 56,746-KA · Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · February 25, 2026 · No. 56,746-KA

Summary

The Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed Richard Refund Spencer’s conviction for second degree murder and mandatory life sentence. The court held that the evidence supported the jury’s finding of specific intent and that Spencer failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the killing occurred in sudden passion or heat of blood sufficient to reduce the offense to manslaughter.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Thompson, J.; Cox, J.; Robinson, J.
Jurisdiction
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Decision date
February 25, 2026
Docket number
56,746-KA
Procedural posture
Spencer appealed his conviction for second degree murder and mandatory life sentence, arguing that the evidence established the mitigating factors necessary to reduce the offense to manslaughter.
Standard of review
For sufficiency of the evidence, the court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and asked whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. For the claimed manslaughter mitigation, the court asked whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the mitigating factors were not established by a preponderance of the evidence. The appellate court does not substitute its appreciation of the evidence, assess witness credibility, or reweigh the evidence.
Precedential value
Published Louisiana Court of Appeal opinion
Parties
Richard Refund Spencer v. State of Louisiana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedurestandard of reviewburden of proofevidencesentencing

Practice areas

Criminal lawCriminal procedureAppellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was insufficient to support Spencer's conviction for second degree murder.
  2. Whether Spencer proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the homicide occurred in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by sufficient provocation, thereby requiring reduction of the conviction to manslaughter.

Holdings

  1. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Spencer committed second degree murder with the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm.
  2. Spencer failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the homicide was committed in sudden passion or heat of blood caused by provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of self-control and cool reflection. The jury therefore properly rejected manslaughter mitigation.

Key quotations

The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (8)
A rational trier of fact could reasonably conclude that seven shots at close range, all striking the victim – two of which from above when she is on the ground – are indicative of the intent to kill, not the intent to scare. (11)

Factual background

Richard Refund Spencer and Michelle Wells had an on-again, off-again relationship, and Spencer had been living in Wells's home. After an argument about their relationship and Spencer leaving the home, Spencer later returned armed with a firearm and shot Wells seven times, including shots fired from above while she was on the floor. Spencer fled in Wells's vehicle, and the firearm recovered from that vehicle was connected through DNA and ballistics evidence to Spencer and the shooting. Spencer told investigators that he shot Wells after she struck him with a broom, but witnesses found no broom near Wells and observed no injuries on Spencer.

Procedural history

Spencer was indicted for second degree murder, tried by a jury, and found guilty as charged. The trial court initially sentenced him to life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence without first ruling on his motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. In a prior appeal, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for a ruling on the pending motion. On remand, the trial court denied the motion and again imposed the mandatory life sentence, after which Spencer brought this appeal.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…