High court denies request of man found guilty in robbery, beating of elderly man

The state Supreme Court has denied a writ application filed by a Rapides Parish man convicted in the 2018 brutal attack and robbery of an elderly Pitkin man who was found unconscious in a roadside ditch.

This week, the court ruled it will not consider the request filed by Gerald Lynn Artis, who was convicted of armed robbery and aggravated second-degree battery in connection with the incident which occurred in December 2018 in rural Allen Parish. The ruling allows for the decision of a lower court to stand.

Artis was convicted of armed robbery and second-degree battery following a jury trial in November 2022.

He was sentenced to 27 years in prison without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension for armed robbery and 10 years for aggravated second degree battery. A district judge ordered the sentences to run at the same time.

Artis, along with three other individuals, are accused of beating and robbing the 73-year-old man after he left the Coushatta Casino in Kinder with a large amount of money in December 2018. The victim was later found in a ditch on Powell Road, south of Oberlin, with several lacerations to the back of his head.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal later affirmed Artis’ conviction despite his claims that the state failed to sufficiently prove him guilty and failed to grant a motion for a new trial.

Artis argued that there was no forensic evidence tying him to the scene of the crime and no identification of him by the victim.

The state contends that it presented several surveillance camera videos, physical evidence and multiple witnesses, including several persons who allegedly saw Artis strike the victim twice in the back of the head with a tire iron and take his wallet before leaving him in the ditch.

Artis also claimed the trial court was wrong in denying a motion to suppress evidence seized during his arrest. He accused investigators from the Allen Parish Sheriff’’s Office of using an illegal “ping” on his cellphone to determine his location, which constituted a warrantless search and was not justified under the facts of the case.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal rejected all the claims.