"This is a big day for us," said Bossier-Webster District Attorney Schuyler Marvin. "This judgment is a real good thorough discussion of all of the issues raised in this case.
They rejected them. We are very satisfied that justice is served here. It's been a long battle."
In March 2011, the state Supreme Court reversed a ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal that may have granted Ingram a hearing for a new trial. Ingram had appealed his conviction and sentence to the Second Circuit, urging several assignments of error.
The Court of Appeal addressed only whether the trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant's motion for a new trial, based in part on allegations of juror misconduct occurring during deliberation.
The defense contended that one of the jurors left the courthouse during a courtroom lunch break, went to a residence armed with a baseball bat and threatened her boyfriend, who was with another woman. The juror then returned to the courthouse where she shared her experience with fellow jurors.
When the Court of Appeal set aside that ruling and ordered an evidentiary hearing on the issue, Marvin took the ruling to a higher authority.
"We took a writ to the Supreme Court, and they granted our writ and told the Court of Appeal 'you're wrong and we're not going to have a hearing over that. Now go address the other assignments of error that were complained about,'" Marvin said.
One of those assignments includes what Marvin referred to as the shoot-the-burglar statute.
"That (law) basically says Ingram had the right to take Kim's life protecting his home and family," Marvin said. "According to the Court of Appeal, they believe the jury was correct in determining that Ingram's actions were not reasonable."
Other issues include excessive sentence and a question about a 9-1-1 transcript
Ingram's attorney M. Allyn Stroud said he had hoped for a reversal of the ruling.
After conferring with his client, he feels sure they will take the Court of Appeal's ruling on the other issues back to the state Supreme Court.
"We expect to ask them to review all the issues," Stroud said. "We challenged the sentence in the event that the conviction is ultimately upheld – then we're asking for a reduction in sentence."
Stroud and his client have 30 days to seek review from the state Supreme Court.
Ingram was sentenced November 30, 2009 to 28 years imprisonment at hard labor and has been in prison since that time.