STATE OF LOUISIANA VS HENRY LEE LEONARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2004 KA 1609 R STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS HENRY LEE LEONARD Judgment @ On Appeal rendered from the 19th Parish of East Baton December 28 2006 Judicial District Court Rouge State of Louisiana Case Nunlber 7 03 497 Sec III The Honorable Michael Erwin Judge Presiding Counsel for Hon Doug Moreau District Attorney Appellee State of Louisiana Premila Burns Assistant District Baton Rouge Attorney LA Counsel for Appellant W Robert Gill Baton Rouge BEFORE l r Henry Lee Leonard LA WHIPPLE DOWNING AND HUGHES JJ 7 HUGHES J The defendant Parish Grand JUlY violation of La Lee Leonard Henry August 27 2003 with on R S life of imprisonment found was guilty Louisiana enol doctrine and remanded the analysis and to consider any See State opinion of second Rouge degree murder charged Following The defendant sentence a sentenced was back to assignments of following 2005 1382 reasons we this failing court to 16 6 La error We new trial 915 So 2d 829 The to a apply the hannless apply pretermitted error to suspension or and remanded for decision for our day jury four a parole 1st Cir 4 27 05 App matter Leonard v For the WL 1669455 La COUli reversed Supreme East Baton appealed asseliing four assignments of Leonard 2004 1609 v as charged as reversed the defendant s conviction and See State count an hard labor without benefit of probation at The defendant sentence one by Through counsel the defendant waived formal 14 30 1 arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty trial the defendant indicted was a harmless in our enol original 932 So 2d 660 2006 06 affinn the conviction and sentence FACTS On to July 20 2003 the defendant while armed with Lakeline Direct a twenty four hour medical call Leonard worked and waited outside the was a occasions even while not 1 30 the last a m approximately 2 30 if he could stop I We pretemlitted atp 15 915 and camera 2d So Ms weapon Leonard a on nurse see Ken LeDeaux Ms Leonard her for a minute assignment s He arrived defendant he on 2 many arrived for work keypad At boyfriend lock at a approximately At called and asked shOlily after calling parked of error addressing sufficiency of evidence 837 went wife Leola his person electronic an ex to the security patrols protect the building consideration ofthe at where his pistol employee from the earlier shift left the building a m by to duty a A metal door with approximately midnight surveillance on 45 caliber building According he carried deputy city constable and center a Leonard 2004 1609 Leonard s vehicle and called her from his cell next to Ms to let phone her know he had arrived At approximately 2 Leonard patrol at Ms of the building 53 David Howell a m workplace arrived s to make sure it was After locked make the sure checked the door he waiting for his saw the defendant wife all walked She to was to not dispatcher disam1ed the code see not none s long place of employment to her to wait for Ms Leonard to Mr conditioning unit air wearing pajama pants and a pullover and asked her to call Ms Leonard to she Ms replied know that he walk off just As he shirt if see Ms Leonard then saw no the door and opened was Leonard whether she had the defendant doing there was woke up and something was not approached supposed Mr LeDeaux The defendant later claimed he had been many times before and she had to According walk Mr LeDeaux to s Ms Leonard told the Mr LeDeaux had been there of your business As he there and the defendant told him he him down before when he wanted to talk to her intended also locked was Ms Leonard told the defendant he knew he to the side of the to him and she asked him what he that he did replied there to The defendant stmied Ms Leonard was on an for her he asked her how defendant was sitting and Ms s any other vehicles in this side side door parking lot waiting expecting to go be there car see dispatcher asked the back The defendant told him not When the right in the someone why he The defendant Mr Howell called his was He noticed Mr LeDeaux entrance employee Howell asked the defendant she He checked the front patrol checking the front of the building he drove around to building security officer for the security for routine Leonard s vehicles in the parking lot He did lot a his never to tmned the defendant he car and to then talk privately While the defendant and Ms Leonard check the rest of the building were Mr Howell noticed 3 talking an Mr Howell went to S UV parked in another lot around the parking comer and up against defendant told Mr Howell the vehicle toward it though he as questioned Leonard Ms went the walking his and the defendant staIied As he walked toward his vehicle leaving When building The defendant also told Ms Leonard he leaving were was the was back into the building approximately At was still there went 3 05 back At conditioning unit again the building Ms to set building Mr Howell facility and approximately who was 3 30 a m camera picked up the body of Mr the air Mr LeDeaux walked out of him went back into the gunshots monitor inside Ms Leonard LeDeaux and placed it into the The defendant then got into Mr LeDeaux vehicle s vehicle on sitting Leonard heard three Ms s the defendant the defendant walking with From the surveillance trunk of Mr LeDeaux noticing saw Moments later the alarm the defendant as the Leonard outside and called 911 watched to a m s vehicle and drove away Within minutes vehicle stopped at a fairly high him law enforcement officer rate of speed across on the defendant under arrest the defendant driving his the defendant s then body he notified and advised him of his Miranda He asked the defendant if he had been shot and the defendant claimed that he fell and cut his knee The officer found have caused questioned anywhere in the no injuries on of blood amount the defendant that would on him and he The officer asked the defendant whose blood s the passenger seat remaining the responded only looked into the defendant on near the defendant him and the defendant pistol spotted parking lot followed him and the When the officer noticed blood headquarters placed rights a magazine that he vehicle and was saw a The weapon had in a state of was on shock The officer cocked semi automatic 45 caliber one round in the chamber and nine Subsequent ballistics testing revealed 4 again that the two spent bullets and the three shell casings found the defendant s mile from the crime the passenger in the trunk the parking found by police officers about Officers found the keys in the vehicle scene seat a was bloody sheet They also found lot where the vehicle and DNA s on profile of profiles of Mr and index on the of the right Also handed investigating officer on seat criminal background check on was driver s scene of the defendant s found in the interior right thumb glove also found C LU blue notebook in the defendant a and office number used criminal records the C LU number in the defendant body mixture of DNA consistent with the a his pager number his home cell infonnation unit at the s consistent with the was s phone notebook numbers by police officers driving records and were s including his name vehicle that contained detailed information about Mr LeDeaux and address bloody eyeglasses car the driver s right and left gloves Kenneth LeDeaux a pants and flip flops of the defendant in shooting OCCUlTed the outside of the tenths of the passenger side and the victim LeDeaux and the defendant finger An on two pair of bloody black Jersey gloves a revealed that DNA found Testing fired from scene were weapon Mr LeDeaux on the crime at license to plates and a run a Under notations of Mr LeDeaux s license number and date of birth the color make and model of his vehicle and the university he attended different pages Leonard in the The The officer also found glove defendant took this e information same a box of the defendant prior s apartment when she s written on mail from Mr LeDeaux vehicle mail from Ms Leonard he entered her unlocked e was several to Ms Testimony revealed that wallet was not at the along with her keys when home After the Leonards divorce the defendant would call Ms Leonard and go her home and place of employment defendant knew that Ms Leonard was often unannounced seeing 5 Mr LeDeaux or uninvited to The and the defendant had and met spoken with him reunite with his did on wife Ms Leonard told the defendant before the ex She also sent the defendant reconcile not want to While the defendant desired several occasions shooting infom1ing him that she no longer intended to mail an e to she shooting shortly before the financial support provide to him 1totion for Mistrial for Prosecutor In this failing assignment of elTor s Violation the defendant of La Code Evid the district court ened in argued grant his motion for mistrial after the prosecutor intentionally elicited to inadmissible evidence which had been hearing trial Prieur expressly excluded by the comi after finding merit In to assignment of this reversed the defendant s conviction because the trial not granting mistrial based a on the prosecutor s comi LeOlllard 2004 1609 found that this elTor analysis Court unattributable to not if the the at to right court in determine our as court See Leonard 2005 1382 provisions of La See fair tIial a Supreme Comi subject was to a and original opinion directed by the Louisiana guilty verdict actually rendered elTor pre abuse of discretion in prejudicial evidence now this error The Louisiana 836 applied by this We must ruling s 915 So 2d admission of elToneous reversed this court Supreme 14 at p s a calculated violation of the trial court s order resulted in the denial of the defendant s hannless 609 1 art at pp at tlial 11 13 was surely 932 So 2d at 667 668 A mistrial under the discretion of the trial comi remarks of the witness or for the defendant 1 st Cir 6125 99 2d So 2 v obtain a at 771 is at the hand of the prosecutor make it impossible fair trial See State 739 So 2d 901 mi prejudicial granted only v Miles 98 2396 p 4 904 writ denied 99 2249 Nevertheless in situations where the witness 231 See State to case P where the and should be in the Code Crim s La 128 00 impermissible Leonard 932 So 2d at 667 668 wherein the supreme court discusses the prosecutor 609 1 and the hamlless error issue at length Code Evid mi 6 La s App 753 reference violation of La to another crime held that the was deliberately elicited by the prosecutor the jurispludence has impermissible reference is imputable mistrial Miles 98 2396 The comment impermissible one by at p 4 the 739 So 2d error we Code Crim P which falls within the ambit of La remark is s not a reasonable doubt deliberately intended if even 771 art assume the harmless was comment See Miles 98 2396 at p suggest bad character to to we were was an clear under the facts of this find that the admission of the other crimes evidence at issue beyond a 904 prosecutor regarding the victim of the battery While the purpose of the prosecutor case at the State and mandates to 4 was 739 So 2d at 904 The harmless erroneous enol 11 27 95 admission of other crimes evidence is analysis on 664 So 2d 94 State appeal 101 The harmless is whether the verdict unattributable 2078 2081 to the 124 L Ed 2d 182 In the case at hand the defendant admitted The issue in this case was of Ken LeDeaux that led gun was shooting found Mr LeDeaux at the scene of the gun shooting but to Mr LeDeaux s enol was is surely 113 S Ct the shooting the killer as thought was not an of the alleged actions never over one case the on R pp simple battery a gun shooting and killing Mr LeDeaux console found actions in this 7 Mr LeDeaux had In fact after center details of the defendant s actions in the prior relate in any way La and the defendant s claim that he acted in including in the glove compaIiment and a case the stand to on the defendant claimed he searched all underneath the vehicle for an to 14 664 So 2d at 100 at p description s While the defendant claimed that he self defense no to the the defendant this subject 16 17 508 U S 275 279 94 1379 Johnson 1993 in The identification of the defendant victim three times issue Louisiana v enol determining whether for actually rendered Sullivan error test trial 94 1379 pp Johnson v a do s vehicle 737 738 not and ground The bear upon or where the crux of the issue is self defense So 2d 1281 See State Powell 28 788 p v 13 La App 2d Cir 1 11 96 683 1289 Based on the circumstances of this case we find that while the prosecutor comment regarding the identity of the victim of the defendant s prior battelY improper and contrary evidence As such was more the evidence the express to than sufficient guilty verdict surely a was simple battery 739 So 2d at 904 905 This see was s refute the defendant s claim of self defense was unattributable to any enol in unable to obtain a fair trial We admitting We find are harmless enor Powell 28 788 at pp no convinced reasonable doubt that the admission of details of the defendant s conviction of was the State court concelning the victim in the defendant s prior conviction indication that the defendant beyond to prior ruling of the trial s See Miles 98 2396 at pp prior 4 5 12 13 683 So 2d at 1289 assignment of error is without merit Sufficiencv of Evidence In this to assignment of enol the defendant avers the evidence beyond a the defendant all of the elements of second degree murder reasonable doubt A conviction based Process to prove on insufficient evidence See U S Const amend XIV La Const cannot stand art I 2 S most viewing the evidence in the light In must challenging the sufficiency of the evidence this Court after insufficient Specifically support the conviction of second degree murder contends that the State failed was favorable to as it violates Due reviewing claims consider the prosecution rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime reasonable doubt 61 L Ed 2d 560 1979 523 So 2d 1305 La R S Jackson v 443 U S Virginia See also La Code Crim P 1308 1309 La 1988 14 30 1 provides in pertinent part 8 307 art 319 whether beyond 99 S Ct 2781 82l B State v any a 2789 Mussall A degree murder is the killing of a human being Second When the offender has 1 a specific intent to kill or to inflict great hmTI1 bodily Specific intent is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences follow his to act formed in 382 act an 390 failure or instant Specific State La 1 10 94 2503 Cousan v 14 p RS intent need not be proven as a the circumstances of the transaction and the Graham 420 So 2d 1126 La R S 14 20 1127 13 state of mind be 684 So 2d 11 25 96 La can fact but may be infened from State actions of defendant v La 1982 in pertinent pmi provides A homicide is Such to justifiable by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger 1 La R S When committed in self defense 14 21 provides 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 should know that he desires or a manner that his adversary knows withdraw and discontinue the to conflict The trier of fact is free matters the resolution of which the witnesses the matter is The trier of fact s s An one appellate detelTI1ination of Cir 9 25 98 721 or depends of the detem1ination of the appellate review factfinder accept reject when there is Moreover of any witness to court 932 or in part the testimony conflicting testimony about factual upon a determination of the weight of the evidence not credibility of its sufficiency subject weight to be given evidence is not will to overtmTI guilt State So 2d 929 in whole v In a 9 not reweigh the evidence Taylor 97 2261 homicide case pp 5 6 La App to a 1st the State must prove reasonable doubt that the homicide beyond a Tayllor not perpetrated in self defense 97 2261 at p 4 721 So 2d at 931 In the LeDeaux died from hand at case as a the testimony elicited result of three Para Ordnance 45 auto a R pp handgun LeDeaux who employment on July planning 23 R to t come no in his hand phone 738 s At 733 approximately engaged on a trip upon closer I Mr LeDeaux was got 736 s lifeless The defendant then vehicle and in the Mr a to Las Vegas three days later R p 736 the According made a According LeDeaux the Upon not finding attempted to lot with wipe a All sudden movement and had to the to right When the defendant drew R p 736 gun body and placed it parking place of exited her a silver the defendant Mr LeDeaux had a defendant gun allegedly searched gun in the trunk of Mr LeDeaux on the rear Mr R pp 737 any weapon the defendant up the blood picked s up vehicle bumper of the sheet he found in the trunk of Mr LeDeaux Following this he threw the sheet inside ofMr 10 a R p 737 ground and undelneath the vehicle for a found Ken a m being approached told the defendant allegedly R p vehicle the 3 30 Mr LeDeaux and Ms R p 735 him and shot and killed him shooting No gun vehicle 736 in his hand which the defendant mistook for After LeDeaux The defendant 626 630 701 Before Mr LeDeaux could get into his vehicle 568 p approached don become his weapon Mr LeDeaux cell and thorax and the defendant admitted that he alone and walked to his vehicle defendant Mr LeDeaux object the head neck visiting Ms Leonard his girlfriend was were defendant now R p wife Leola Leonard ex Leonard to July 20 2003 the defendant waited outside of the place of employment On of his R pp 701 trial established that Ken at wounds gunshot owned the weapon that killed Mr LeDeaux shot his victim three times was LeDeaux svehicle s After up Mr LeDeaux closing the trunk he picked them on the passenger seat vehicle own door his to own put the gloves Mr LeDeaux LeDeaux the s to as a defendant lot behind parking rear thought somebody on area saw and on the him and was to his s get where vehicle He drove He exited Mr vehicle he removed The defendant then out got R p 739 away James Cutrer to own vehicle building own to opened the vehicle s slowly drove ordered was a ground stopped by responded that Baton a Rouge of his vehicle and get with nine rounds in the time 740 p According he had fallen and cut his knee placed under was R his pants The loaded 45 caliber no short distance He secured his pair of gloves wearing and threw them much blood so defendant At a ground Noticing the blood on the defendant the officer asked him why he the 49 a he made his way back police officer patrolling the had vehicle of Mr LeDeaux out got Minutes later the defendant on s his hands and got back into Mr LeDeaux vehicle was into his vehicle He vehicle and retrieved on s parked vehicle and he gloves was glasses from the ground and put R p 738 The defendant then drove Mr LeDeaux his s atTest and advised of his Miranda handgun magazine and found was one on to the officer the 349 The R p R pp rights 348 the defendant s passenger seat live round in the chamber during the defendant s apprehension and arrest R p 741 did he infonn any officer that he had shot another person in self defense When rejects that the case involves circumstantial evidence and the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant s jury reasonably own testimony hypothesis falls and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises 1984 defense the a a reasonable doubt The defendant In jUlY did finding not s State hypothesis of the defendant v Captville 448 So 2d 676 680 innocence guilty was of second believe the defendant s 11 based on a degree murder testimony regarding La claim of self it is clear that Mr LeDeaux s alleged threat his alleged sudden in his hand mistaken for object The a movement The conclusion reasonably support a an inference that the mind in the as case of facts by Davenport 445 So 2d 1190 an awareness of 469 U S denied instant case fabrication designed to that the defendant did not by the jurors of purposeful finding guilty alleged silver to if told truth his self defense events deflect blame testify truthfully him by as See theory the only Captville 680 at misrepresentation of was a would have been unfavorable survivor A and the jurors apparently concluded that the defendant s version of the from him 448 So 2d car weapon immediately preceding the fatal shots could toward his misrepresentation reasonably raises the inference of of flight case the defendant 1984 La acts of both offense following v Rault an or the of material See State offense 1984 v indicative as 445 So 2d 1203 83 L Ed 2d 154 105 S Ct 225 established an Lying has been recognized See State wrongdoing 873 following La celio The facts in the flight and material misrepresentation by the defendant In rejecting provocation by a claim of self defense the jury Mr LeDeaux defendant against his victim hypothesis of innocence While there is that in the no context obviously concluded was um easonable and claim of that the force used unjustifiable by As such other hypothesis which raises exclusively and in relation manslaughter it is unclear included the responsive the the presented by the defendant falls to to a reasonable doubt we note no self defense the defendant has inselied other pmi of the brief manslaughter If the defendant s intention of s sufficiency of evidence portion of the defendant s brief wherein confines his argument of and rejected the defendant was to have this Court address the issue manslaughter 12 out the definition of Regardless the verdict sheet provided offense of he R p 214 In to the finding jUlY the defendant of second guilty degree murder jury implicitly rejected the the theory of manslaughter After thorough review a evidence in the have found beyond degree murder and This favorable most light of the record to we are convinced that any rational trier of fact could the State reasonable doubt that the defendant a that the of his victim shooting assignment of enol viewing the was not guilty of second was justified is without merit Autopsv Report In this allowing assignment of Dr Shannon Cooper violation of defendant him enol s to the defendant testify Sixth Amendment the defendant Specifically performed the autopsy but Dr Cramer s repOli s Cooper Dr from an right asserts avers the district court ened in autopsy performed by another in to confront the witnesses against that because Dr Michael Cramer Cooper testified Shannon at trial from Dr reading of the report constituted inadmissible hearsay At tlial the defendant Washington 541 v comi U S 36 receiving the tIial comi one an answer s ruling s objection after from the defendant was 158 L Ed 2d 177 inquiring the testifying report as qualified as an expert an on Crawford The trial 2004 whether Crawford conect s counsel in the it failed to make the conect inquiry is first whether the negative or testifying as an Though inquiry coroner s hearsay prohibited by Crawford second whether merely reading if he is Cooper testifying based expeli testifying about the findings of another expert The conect order of testimonial to Dr 124 S Ct 1354 ovenuled the defendant addressed the issue of and objected Dr report was Cooper is expert based upon the report finally expert based upon hearsay whether he is properly in the field upon which he is 13 testifying Under the first prong of inquiry our Crawford decision 124 S Ct against the accused Crawford 541 U S analysis of testimony excludes 124 S least at some applies states to Ct at 1364 as all not witnesses As noted by the Comi s hearsay exceptions such Crawford 541 U S business records and official records prohibited conCUlTence O Connor in their Rehnquist and Justice Chief Justice at 51 coroner s Crawford 541 U S core concerns The Confrontation Clause 1364 at is hearsay Supreme Comi clearly The hearsay implicates the Sixth Amendment s at 51 examine whether the Testimonial report constituted testimonial hearsay explained by the we 76 at as 124 S Ct at 1378 Professor George Pugh noted the to decided Symposium The Work Professor 1977 Pugh 250 So 2d 727 our s in recognizing In State 1972 strongly tended to sexual penetration essential element of the crime the coroner Although hearsay and did the corroborate the woman s and s double repOli was opinion stated not come to testimonial 1191 the exception only evidence to the occunence although of the hearsay medical Minyard based Monroe 345 So 2d at 1190 to the coroner s rule report was clearly against hearsay Justice report would fall under the business records hearsay rule and fmiher implied that the report hearsay Marcus J admissible that the assistant within any Marcus noted in his dissent the exception not the Dr were hearsay testimony of in response to Graves 259 La 526 testimony which thereon v In Monroe the court held that since examination repOlis was Monroe 345 So 2d v previous rulings criticism of the earlier decision in State an business records many years before Crawford cases supreme court modified its 1971 a of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1971 169 318 319 1972 Term 33 La L Rev La problem hearsay rule in criminal exception 1185 the he did not dissenting 14 use that phrase Monroe 345 was 2d So not at Monroe allowed hearsay reliable was exception where the witness an This exception was used in State was v unavailable and the 399 So 2d Prestridge 564 La 1981 Because La art 105 is narrowly drawn it only allows the repOli for non testimonial hearsay coroner s A Code Crim P report and coroner s proces verbal of a competent evidence of death and the an autopsy shall be thereof but not of any cause other fact The report coroner s The second testifying as an Dr with a was protocol completed by qualified and accepted as in forensic he was prepare the 3 simply reading the repOli or the Coroner of East Baton as an expert in the field of medicine He reviewed the pathology to were autopsy repOli taken in this case testify regarding the autopsy findings and Dr Cramer See State repOli was autopsy photographs that able where the even Cooper the cause of death legal custodian of all records made and kept by his coroner or a coroner s thereof Dr to prove Cooper testified that Dr Cramer and the Cooper indicated cause the was specialization The Dr expeli Cooper prepared by Dr therefore admissible inquiry is whether Rouge Parish he office was deputy may testify as testifying witness did v Ducre to not 596 So 2d 1372 the victim perform 1381 s death the La or autopsy App the or 1st Cir 1992 In the case at hand the defendant did The defendant LeDeaux LeDeaux three times particularly the 3 holding The Crawford one to by his The own not dispute that admission at trial testified that he shot Mr autopsy report indicated that the gunshot wounds his chest killed Mr LeDeaux calls into he shot and killed Ken question the decision in State v The only Holmes 258 La 221 issue 245 argued by the 2d So 707 La 1971 in his There the issue was whether the victim died of a penlmife wound or because of a heart attack Justice Tate the confrontation issue In such an instance where the manner of death is determinative of guilt or dissent raised La at 242 ilIDocence this author recommends that the trial court should en on the side ofcaution Holmes 258 245 2d So at 714 715 Tate J dissenting 15 defendant was wounds In this regard Dr Cramer detracted from the factfinder s testimony regarding why he shot Further examine and oppOliunity case The No harm was suffered Moreover Cooper Cooper at to expert testimony s see they added how to veracity of the defendant s and to any infom1ation he recognize as a that a coroner was did cross afforded the his thought might help result of his Dr Cramer Cooper in fact trial The defendant by the defendant we We fail ample opportunity examine Dr Cramer rather than Dr the defendant instantly from those gunshot Mr LeDeaux examine Dr elicit from Dr to not report simply established that Mr determination of the the defendant had recross autopsy report did report and Dr Cooper s merely cumulative were The in self defense shot three times and that he died almost was concerning that report or were legal theOlY of self defense address any LeDeaux that the shots fired to inability was not a witness often prepares the repOli without detailed knowledge of the other facts of the case or cross against autopsy even any knowledge of who the defendant might be Either medical expeli could have testified to the of the autopsy repOli same evidence i e the We need not reach the third repOli to was not testimonial contents inquiry because hearsay and that Dr we conclude that the Cooper s testimony coroner s was limited the contents of the autopsy report This assignment of elTor alleging a violation of the holding in Crawford is without merit Post arrest Silence In this assignment of error the defendant avers the district court erred in ovenuling the defendant s objection and denying his motion for mistrial based the prosecutor s references In to his post alTest silence separate lines of questioning of prosecutor made reference to the defendant 16 on s two law enforcement officers post alTest silence the The defendant did not object after not to these allegedly inappropriate and inadmissible they were made and in his brief admits to complain of the prosecutor s failing do to immediately references The defendant did so questioning until the day after line of the alleged violations While the defendant did Cutrer James inculpatory pre trial do the objection with any thereby prevent 3 31 00 to 451 for or cure an enor State 841 raising the issue totality of on 1035 State This court as on defense counsel in nothing to silence post anest s 384 U S Arizona v to overruled had the defendant 436 86 S Ct contemporaneous objection is required Hilton v the rule are not 94 0587 p 4 La lodge a Even had the objected a La App Inegularities to at or objections he is been made error assignment of enol lacks merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED enol S the time of the 654 So 2d contemporaneous objection P art 841 1st Cir contemporaneous 7 App 1st Cir 4 95 improper admission of these 17 the objection and on 99 1239 p 12 by the officers required by La Code Crim appeal to The defendant did not make appeal if they Walker v the evidence been hannless provided The purpose of the contemporaneous review Since the defendant failed to ground during trial to a the statements made be availed of 453 art appellate 764 So 2d 1027 occunence not allow the trial judge the oppOliunity objection following cannot was allegedly an 1966 Under La Code Crim P objection lule is that See Miranda warnings an error the introduction of to references impermissible 1602 16 L Ed 2d 694 to preserve made objection which the trial This Miranda following was by the defendant statement discovelY object during the direct examination of Officer on this precluded from timely given the statements would have
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
