Jump To

Top Caption Disposition [Lead Opinion

                  by Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10812838/state-of-louisiana-v-jason-specht/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State of Louisiana v. Jason Specht

Louisiana Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2025-KA-0284
• Judges: Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome; Judge Daniel L. Dysart; Judge Pro Tempore Dennis R. Bagneris

• Disposition: Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (31.3K)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed

Lead Opinion

                        by Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2025-KA-0284

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
JASON SPECHT *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA

---

APPEAL FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 563-312, SECTION “G”
Judge Nandi Campbell

---

Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome

---

(Court composed of Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart,
Judge Pro Tempore Dennis R. Bagneris)

Barry S. Ranshi
The Barry S. Ranshi Law Firm LLC
4224 Florida Ave.
Suite 6
Kenner, LA 70065

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

Jason R. Williams
District Attorney
Parish of Orleans
Brad Scott
Assistant District Attorney
619 South White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR STATE/APPELLEE

AFFIRMED
March 20, 2026
RLB
DLD
DRB Jason Specht (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction for aggravated

battery in violation of La. R.S. 14:34. He raised a defense of self-defense at trial

and on this appeal. He also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the

conviction. For reasons that follow, we affirm the conviction.

Proceedings below

The case was initiated by a bill of information on September 5, 2024. It was

tried to a jury on January 28, 2025. Appellant was convicted by unanimous verdict.

The judge imposed a sentence of three years (suspended) and two years of

probation. Appellant raises no issue regarding the sentencing in this appeal but

contests the jury’s guilty verdict.

Facts

Defendant is an artist who makes his living drawing caricatures on Jackson

Square in New Orleans. The victim, Emery Young (“Emery”)1 was spending the

day sightseeing in the French Quarter on April 14, 2024. He was accompanied by

1 The informality of designating members of the Young family by their first names is necessary

for the purpose of efficiently distinguishing these individuals who all share the same last name.

1
his wife, Arketha Bryant-Young (“Arketha”); his daughter, Jasmine Young

(“Jasmine”) and two of his grandchildren, “Emery III” and “Zoriana.”

At some point, Jasmine and Zoriana decided that they wanted to have a

caricature drawn of themselves. Jasmine sat first for her portrait. While Appellant

was drawing Jasmine’s caricature, Appellant engaged in a verbal altercation with a

bystander. Appellant was angry because the bystander was playing religious music

very near to his work area and he believed the music was driving customers away.

After Jasmine’s drawing was complete, Zoriana was seated for her caricature.

While Appellant was drawing, the bystander continued to play music. Appellant

asked Jasmine to talk to the bystander and convince him to stop playing the music

in his work area. Jasmine chose not to get involved in that dispute. In response,

Appellant stopped drawing and tore up the work that he had completed. Jasmine

became upset and began quarreling with Appellant.

Emery had been watching Jasmine and Zoriana from a bench nearby. When

he saw that things had gone awry, he walked over to the area where Appellant had

been working. Here, the recollections of Emery and Appellant diverge in opposite

directions.

Emery’s testimony

Emery testified that he placed himself between Jasmine and Appellant in

order to end the argument between them. He told Appellant, “we’re about to walk

away” and “[j]ust leave it alone.” Emery testified that after expressing his intent to

walk away, he turned his back to Appellant and started walking with Jasmine and

2
Zoriana. He said that Appellant pursued him and his family members and

continued to argue. At some point, Emery said, he turned around and grabbed

Appellant by the collar and asked, “did you hear what I said? . . . just walk away,

let it be.” When Appellant continued to follow closely behind him, Emery testified

that he turned and grabbed Appellant’s collar again. He testified that Appellant

struck him a couple of times before he realized he was being stabbed. Emery said

that when he realized this, he “punched [Appellant] a few times” and then someone

pulled him back. While Emery was being held back, Appellant stabbed him in the

groin and blood began “gushing out.”

Appellant’s testimony

According to Appellant, Emery was strangling him with his own shirt collar

and punching him before he drew his knife and began stabbing Emery. He

testified that he was in fear for his life and “had been pleading with Emery to,

don’t do this, let me go.” He claimed in testimony that he could not avoid fighting

because Emery would not let him go. He said, “if I hadn’t used the knife…he

would have continued to beat me until I was brain dead.”

The videotape

In addition to the witness testimony, there are three videos of the altercation.

A review of the videos shows fairly clearly that Appellant was pulling a knife from

his pocket before he was struck. It also shows that Emery was holding a piece of

Appellant’s shirt at the time but it does not appear that Emery was using the shirt

to strangle Appellant in the manner that Appellant testified.

3
There is no dispute that both men were injured in the altercation. Emery was

stabbed in the arm, abdomen, and groin. Appellant suffered a black eye and

testified that he had a concussion.

Assignment of error

Appellant makes a single assignment of error. He argues that the evidence

was constitutionally insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for aggravated

battery. Specifically, Appellant argues that the State failed to meet its burden of

proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was not acting in self defense.

Standard of review

When a defendant asserts that the State has failed to meet its burden of

proof, an appellate court must review the record in its entirety to determine

whether the evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all

elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In making that

determination, courts must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution.” State v. Johnson, 2003-1228, p.4 (La. 04/14/04); 870 So.2d 995, 998

(citing State v. Sylvia, 01-1406, p. 2 (La. 4/9/03); 845 So.2d 358, 361); Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307.

Analysis and discussion

Before we reach the issue of sufficiency of evidence of self defense, we

must address the State’s argument that Appellant is precluded from arguing for a

finding of self defense in this appeal. The State argues that Appellant failed to

give timely notice of his intention to raise self defense as an issue at trial. La. C.

Cr. P. art. 390(B) requires a defendant to give notice of its intent to assert a

justification of self defense within 10 days after the State has moved for discovery.

4
However, a trial court may permit a defendant to provide notice of its intent at any

time before commencement of trial for good cause. In the case before us, the State

did not file a motion for discovery until January 27, 2025, the day before trial. By

contrast, Appellant filed a Motion to Include Jury Instruction for Self-Defense on

January 10, 2025. As Appellant gave notice of his intent before the State filed its

motion for discovery, the notice was timely. Appellant is entitled to have his

argument of self defense heard by this court.

“In any criminal proceeding in which the justification of self-defense is

raised, the state shall have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the

defendant did not act in self-defense.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 390; State v. Wiggins, 56,

427, p. 9 (La. App. 2 Cir. 10/1/25), 421 So. 3d 1172, 1180.

Following the trial court’s jury instruction and considering the evidence

presented, the six-member jury reached a unanimous verdict rejecting Appellant’s

self defense justification. As noted above, this court must determine whether the

evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that Appellant did not

act in self defense. In making this determination, we must assess the evidence in

the light most favorable to the State. Therefore, we make the following catalog of

evidence that was available to the jury:

1. Emery testified that he attempted to extricate his family members and

himself from the disagreement with Appellant by using verbal de-escalation, and

physically walking away. He testified further that Appellant continued the verbal

sparring and physically kept himself in close contact with his victim. This evidence

alone can support a rational juror’s decision that Appellant was the aggressor in the

confrontation thereby depriving him of the defense of justification under La. R.S.

14:21, which provides that:

5
A person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot
claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in
good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should
know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict.

1. The videos that depicted the stabbing showed, fairly clearly, that Appellant

drew his knife from his pocket before Emery struck him. As our court held in State

v. Bracken, 2024-0208, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/5/25), 414 So. 3d 1039, 1043, “[i]n a

non-homicide case, the analysis of self-defense as a justification is a two-step

inquiry: (1) a subjective inquiry into whether the force was apparently necessary;

and (2) an objective inquiry into whether the force used was reasonable under the

circumstances.” (Citations omitted.) The videos alone could have convinced a

rational juror that the force used by Appellant was not reasonable.

1. Jasmine testified that Appellant initiated the hostilities by verbally sparring

with the bystander and tearing up the caricature for which Zoriana had posed. In

addition, both Jasmine and Arketha supported Emery’s assertion that he tried

repeatedly to remove the family from the dispute with Appellant and from

Appellant’s work area. Jasmine and Arketha both testified in agreement with

Emery that Appellant refused to let the disagreement go and that he followed the

family and continued the verbal harassment after the Youngs had taken active steps

to disengage. This testimony, taken in the light most favorable to the State,2 would

be sufficient to justify the jury’s determination that Appellant did not act in self

defense.

2 As required by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307.

6
Conclusion

The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that

rejected Appellant’s claim of self defense. We therefore affirm Appellant’s

conviction.

AFFIRMED

7