State Of Louisiana VS Jarvis Hasten
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 KA 1025 STATE OF LOUISIANA VS JARVIS HASTEN JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 21 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DOCKET NUMBER 687 06 DIVISION D PARISH OF IBERVILLE STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE WILLIAM C DUPONT JUDGE RICHARD 1 WARD JR ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE DISTRICT ATTORNEY STATE OF LOUISIANA ELIZABETH A ENGOLIO ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY PLAQUEMINE LA ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT THOMAS NELSON NEW ROADS LA BEFORE JARVIS HASTEN GAIDRY MCDONALD AND MCCLENDON JJ Ih CCIVrrL IJ CPJWU MCDONALD J The defendant Jarvis Hasten with second entered found new a degree plea of guilty as murder not a guilty charged violation of La R S 14 30 1 Following The trial trial The defendant waived imprisonment at suspension of sentence assignments 1 charged by grand jury indictment was a court trial by jury the defendant denied the defendant sentencing delays and hard labor without the benefit of The defendant The defendant now s was motion for sentenced to life parole probation or was appeals raising the following of error The verdict is contrary to the law and evidence in that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense 2 The trial court s limiting of the prior specific victim was prejudicial error 3 The 4 The trial court erred in not trial acts of the ruling disallowing the defense to question both the police officers and the primary State s l witness Mr Ronald Videaux regarding an incident wherein he had previously hidden a gun from these same officers at this same location was prejudicial error court s granting a mistrial when the State adverted to the confessions of the defendant in the opening statement where there had been no pretrial ruling on the admissibility of the statements in contravention of La Code Crim P art 767 and also where they were not with the benefit of his Miranda rights 5 The trial erred in court allowing the State to mention and introduce items of evidence which turned 6 over The trial Ms to the defense court erred in arrests all of which were not prior to the trial allowing the prosecution Shanetha Alexander make a defense witness were not defendant in the presence of the mandatory Johnson hearing to ask about the convictions of the jury without requiring a prior to this line of questioning 1 In his brief the defendant refers to this witness Vito We will refer to this witness as Vito as 2 as Ronald Videaux as that is consistent with the record opposed to The trial court erred in 7 filed on of the denying the motion for all of the above bases and and material new on trial the additional basis Brady evidence discovered by the State and the defense after the trial of the 8 new matter The trial court erred in allowing State witnesses to testify regarding their opinion of whether the offense was committed in self defense to 9 be decided as this was by the jury The trial court gruesome photographs of the victim Kevin Ambeau even Police evidentiary photographs 10 The trial testify erred in allowing for purpose court erred in the allowing the State the best evidence of the introduce to through the Chief of though there was introduction of no the Chief Kevin Ambeau his version of the defendant to the ultimate issue statement s where statement was the to videotaped statement itself In the alternative errors the defendant constitutes argues grounds for review the record for the following remand for that the cumulative reversal error reasons a new that this court will not find any reversible presupposing Finally pursuant we reverse to effect of the errors the defendant asks this court to La Code Crim P the conviction vacate 920 2 For sentence and art the trial STATEMENT OF FACTS On or about of the St Gabriel Police was to the a near scene and radioed located behind B on 11 00 p m his back B D Mini Mart Sterling Redditt sound of gunshots located less than Officer Redditt a responded dispatch parked in the driveway of the defendant s trailer home D Mini Mart on Officer Department heard gunshots The mile from Officer Redditt s location Officer Redditt his 2006 coming from the direction of qumier of lying 28 April the statement upon arrest and observed Jordan Clark ground outside of the trailer On the the defendant admitted 3 to the victim scene and in shooting the victim but claimed that he did that while victim s in self defense so in his standing was request they walked toward the defendant walk away to attempted the against defendant to kill threatened specifically rear side s At the of the trailer to talk When the the victim followed stood face According the defendant indicated the victim approached by pressed what the defendant insisted with the defendant and victim he doorway The defendant to be to the defendant to face a gun the victim right before the defendant fired his gun at the him twice shooting ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE In his first assignment of error the defendant is insufficient to sustain his conviction for second State failed to prove self defense While the defendant by beyond a a notes second weapon the victim that State witness Ronald Vito had the victim s the initially that issues court reviewing evidence The reason for to S Ct 970 67 L Ed 2d 30 are to found remove a at the scene gun from the an one or more acquittal under Hudson evidence in accordance with Jackson sufficiency 1981 450 U S 443 U S 40 viewing 307 contends that As later noted 101 the 99 S Ct the time of the offense seven pretermitted sufficiency of the entering the defendant s property at not presented to the jury and of the evidence assessment a is that the accused may Louisiana Virginia the In such of error the defendant also notes that the victim this was However this therefore will not be included in the The defendant below and in assigmnent was trial v errors assignment argument for information trial rational trier of fact v banned from appeal contesting should first determine the a new not not act in reputation and the fact raised in this if number violent reviewing sufficiency first be entitled In his s was opportunity sufficiency of the evidence and alleging 2 murder because the body We note case degree reasonable doubt that defendant did noting that contrast argues that the evidence of error discovery of this information constitutes grounds for a assigmnent of error number seven along with others is a late due to the reversal of the conviction 4 2781 61 L Ed 2d 560 could not evidence admitted to as beyond a to an trial If the is sufficient to error harmless trial but is to reviewing sufficient to by of the trial us not entitled to an issues both admissible in which the acquittal even not then consider the other to a new error which entirety of the evidence was a new though the admissible evidence v Hearold 603 2d So 731 1992 most favorable beyond this review a we test La also any rational trier of fact to the prosecution must be states 15 438 viewing the evidence to find the La Code Crim P on in the essential elements of the art 821 In conducting expressly mindful of Louisiana s circumstantial in part to prove R S testing the sufficiency of the evidence Virginia requires that a conviction be based v reasonable doubt which evidence tends excluded court must might be insufficient State proof sufficient for evidence error be moot determines that there has been trial cases enunciated in Jackson crime are must support the conviction the accused is The constitutional standard for light erroneously was determine whether the accused is entitled court in entirety of support the conviction then the accused will be granted considered alone La prosecution When the entirety of the evidence acquittal and the reviewing assigmnents of not to the that that crime would be pure dicta since those issues entitled as evidence that crime and any discussion to and inadmissible 734 favorable support the conviction the accused to On the other hand when the was most reasonable doubt inadmissible including is insufficient discharged as light reasonably conclude that all of the essential elements of the offense have been proven the in the 1979 every State assuming every fact to be reasonable Wright v 5 proved that the hypothesis of innocence 98 0601 p 2 La App is 1st Cir 99 19 2 730 So 2d 485 486 writs denied 99 0802 La So 2d 1157 2000 0895 La 11 17 00 The crime of second a human being inflict great is that act statements as a intent is v by a La R S fact as a 1 1A ultimate writ denied s actions or or v facts a Deleo to case as a defendant be resolved s act p of 4 La App 15 8 not When the defendant in committed in self defense that a homicide is a a a at the victim or a 943 In that the Instead the defendant argues was threatened prosecution claims self defense in imminent 6 kill to firing reasonable doubt that the homicide harm and that the 665 961 So 2d 1160 07 when committed in self defense reasonably believes that he is State 9 15 06 Louisiana Revised Statutes 14 justifiable receiving great bodily intent gun and 1st Cir deny shooting homicide Specific 673 So 2d 663 Specific pointing result of the wounds inflicted beyond question of fact by the fact finder 684 So 2d 923 2006 0504 the defendant does must prove a the circumstances 1st Cir 5 10 96 App 12 6 96 La depicting that he shot the victim in self defense after he felt his life the State criminal intent by direct evidence such proven 1146 writ denied 2006 2636 La victim died to or by inference from circumstantial evidence legal conclusion 96 1411 State the instant to kill consequences to follow his Though intent is specific intent may be may be inferred from So 2d 1143 Specific killing of It may be inferred from the circumstances of Buchanon 95 0625 p 4 La person specific intent a 14 30 1 10 14 defendant defendant an is the murder in pertinent part hen the offender has La R S to act the transaction Thus such 773 So 2d 732 actively desired the prescribed criminal it need not be proven as 748 of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the failure or w bodily harm state offender 1 degree 10 29 99 was 1 20A provides by one who danger of losing his life killing is necessary to not save or himself from that On danger appeal the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence in the viewing light rational fact finder could have found defendant did La App La 14 2 not act in self defense 1st Cir 12 28 01 03 804 favorable most beyond State 2d So v 932 the to or prosecution a reasonable doubt that the a Williams 2001 0944 pp 5 6 939 writ denied 2002 0399 836 So 2d 135 According to State witness Dr Alfredo Suarez pathology the victim suffered the left lateral chest wall a close range fatal an expert in forensic gunshot entry wound exiting through the third and fourth rib Suarez noted that the victim would have died from this shot alone gunshot entered the victim s mouth and exited behind the left mouth The second shot the shooter after not was was described as downward standing above the victim s head would have caused the victim to 3 as The fall down and thus Dr A second angle it took to of the place while gunshot to the chest was concluded to be Dr Suarez confirmed that the absence of tattooing indicates the first shot that the defendant was at victim when he fired the least two and one half to three feet away from the gunshots St Gabriel Police Chief Kevin Ambeau seized the defendant from the kitchen counter of the defendant s After the trailer s weapon scene was secured Chief Ambeau Officer Redditt and other officers canvassed the area area including area between the trailer and the circling the trailer for evidentiary other weapon 3 the immediate was items such as store and the another weapon No found According to testimony presented at the trial the victim 7 was taller than the defendant The defendant the defendant to According statement videotaped s the victim said played during the trial was holla at me he led the as defendant behind the trailer The defendant further stated So Im now thinking he we exactly gonna holla at me so we face to face and face to face so he pulled a gun out his back pocket his back started just what I pocket and pointed it in my side like man please man please don t man ever be all this And I started come on man did you man come on man please bro it ain t gotta So as Im holding his gun trying to argue with him Im having my hand on my gun the hold sic time So Im pulling my gun out so he thinking Im not gonna do nothing He just got the pistol in my side like man don t do man don t make me um Don t make pop you bro shot him and that s shoot you bro me so I the bottom line The defendant stated that he shot the victim a second time because he did not know where the first bullet hit the victim and he might thought that the victim shoot him back State witness Devon Green the defendant s friend the victim the defendant approached According was present when to Green Ronald Vito anived with the victim but left when the victim and the defendant Green stated that he converse had a approached victim grab kill was the defendant and were than not saw he Vito saw to the side scuffling trying know if it response to was a gun Green observed the like and he something to was to help a or the victim of his The State statement to the Man don t the effect began to attempted so I broke out 8 running As he flee was to fired impeach police including question regarding his visual observations not putting object looked like the victim raise his hand and another shot by reading portions following that the victim sure Green stated that the state to outside of the trailer when the After the defendant shot the victim Green running Green they Green heard the defendant me Green were and called the defendant in his side Jarvis side something gun more sure Green and the defendant gun victim a was began While I was the I don t running I heard shot pow a that he explained a couple shots was looking two and shot occurred after the victim fell Green responded the see when no or his knees questioned as In his statement to the follows Green testified that he lied shooting people testified that he familiar with the victim s was telling to the police me out as a of fear Green also on me reputation police Did you by the police they had a hit specifically saying was Green testimony He confirmed that the second running to In his trial three dangerous and violent person State defendant was Due to Vito not witness Ronald Vito s in the immediate friend of both the victim and the a at the area time but did not was capable of shooting the shooting the fact that he did knowledge of the victim s background and believe that the defendant see anyone Vito initially thought that the victim had shot the defendant when he heard the gunshots Vito approached According to call the When the to the victim after he Vito he told the victim police police shot and tried to get up and instructed to Vito used his cell came was phone to call 911 for Vito walked away from the the or Vito something like that opportunity to remove a have done not observe gun from the or remove a on or near He so by the victim and one Alexander the victim had a was over a little the victim s person but did not scene child who the time of the offense the defendant to ambulance repeatedly testified that he Defense witness Shanetha Alexander has fathered bystander convicted felon admitted that he had a gun from stated that he would a him Vito believed that scene the confrontation between the defendant and the victim money an help was reputation 9 was two fathered children who were by the defendant At According living with Alexander for violent person and the being a defendant of such was aware testified that Vito not was at the time of the offense trustworthy Defense witness Sean Redditt testified that he Vito from the police station after the offense stated that he left a Redditt to take him to bottle of gin retrieve it at the Redditt confinned that he was and would do keep testimony anything defendant guilty verdict canvassed the to do so Vito weapon from the victim s defendant shot the victim even this area Vito informed bulging During case the indicates and the defendant scene While repeatedly body a or the s cross of any witness about factual of the matters not given is its to not subject to accept or ground only and a depends matter s is Thus the victim the no in whole reject when there is The trier of fact threat or to the in part the conflicting testimony upon a of the determination weight of the determination of the weight one appellate review Thus 10 the see or remove the to clearly posed the resolution of which sufficiency was The evidence indicates that the scene Moreover the admitting that he had the time stated that he did not of the witnesses the credibility evidence family The officers assuming that the defendant initially felt threatened by testimony examination jury rejected weapon second time after he fell defendant The trier of fact is free be gin the back of him out of jail On redirect he stated that his second shot occurred when the victim to was to with the defendant and his good friends III weapon recovered from the opportunity residence and asked s claim that he shot the victim in self defense s thoroughly pocket Redditt Vito truthful was The to up Green and to According defendant have taken the must someone picked Redditt observed Vito walk the trailer and when he returned his Redditt that Alexander also an appellate court will not reweigh the evidence Williams 2001 0944 Considering beyond Thus at p the fact finder a find no defense prosecution foregoing we this in the find the State established we in the find that it supports the assignment in self defense not act jury s rejection of the defendant the evidence Viewing guilt 6 804 So 2d at 939 testimony presented error determination of s reasonable doubt that the defendant did a we to overturn favorable most light claim of self s jury s decision to Based the on the of error lacks merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO In the second court erred in evidence of assignment of error the defendant limiting testimony an overt act by on the testimony of Shanetha Alexander acts by the victim of his to right that the a acts of the victim prior the victim argues that the trial The defendant was where there was specifically notes that limited to exclude specific violent The defendant claims that this resulted in fair trial and to present a defense testimony would have established the defendant defendant s Alexander would have testified of the victim s knowledge At the outset we note s state of mind at of State that the trial evidence of the victim During s to to the victim s character defense witnesses was aware own and the Through the the defendant introduced general reputation for being dangerous and violent show the victim had foundation for such her to judge did allow the introduction of the direct examination of Alexander the defense testimony she and as According prior bad acts general reputation evidence regarding examination deprivation The defendant contends the time of the offense in support of the self defense claim the defendant a testimony of the victim s was a reputation for carrying established by Alexander reputation for violence 11 to elicit firearm The attempted a s testimony that and had discussed this reputation noting with the defendant The trial court sustained the State that evidence of admissible that he general reputation and The defense attorney was to seeking to objected not the introduce evidence of acts would be ruling and noted specific court s previous a fireanns and violence between the victim and someone defendant and the defendant s act that the victim where court one was person refused victim and involved in several shot and where was to allow evidence someone Evidence of to this a person s dangerous two persons overt act Code Evid on confonnity generally is with his or the part of the victim art 404A 2 victim s presented to The trial or at admissible are a crime a to specific exceptions to The defense hostile demonstration the time of the offense charged overt act at the time of the offense s establish the commission of an moved for a mistrial 12 regarding the some to the defense the defendant and overt act La charged During objection testimony concerning or regarding first be shown that the victim made the trial court found that sufficient specifically evidence Such evidence is the testimony had been by the victim time of the offense 4 to prove particular on a Thus in order to introduce any evidence to elicit relationship stabbed her character examination of Green upon the State attorney s attempt including incidents exception with respect character of the victim of hostile demonstration cross other than the violence between the not However there Relevant here is the the victim s character it had the involving The defense added were acts of specific admissible when the accused offers evidence of an 4 acts of violence character La Code Evid art 404A general rule of the of of that act other than the defendant that the person acted in occasion knowledge objection s trial court s mling at the The the kill or to the mind of do great 9 24 04 court in the record 2396 pp 99 2249 App a 1st Cir 749 To meet the 99 651 denying Where a in support of a or Once court cannot function of the the accused a 428 La 1981 s plea of self defense The Miles 98 writ denied 10 La 99 1462 La p introduced exercise its discretion to such infringe jury by disbelieving this defense permitted him by law Miles admissibility s reasonable to help may be shown by general reputation in the community or of a specific State victim that Jackson v s acts were known character trait depends Once evidence of an two to 419 So 2d 425 on overt act presented evidence of threats and dangerous character is admissible for the conduct and 2 has dangerous character the time of the offense show the defendant 906 v 739 So 2d at 906 the part of the victim has been victim 901 writ denied defense the purpose for which the evidence is offered on appreciable evidence Brooks 98 1151 v defense proper foundation is laid at 2d So 1237 the requirement of Article overt act State 739 State by prior threats against the defendant the defendant introduce establish the 734 So 2d 1232 So 2d 98 2396 at pp 7 8 must 753 So 2d 231 determining and to overt act 1st Cir 6 25 99 appreciable evidence the trial testimony v 2003 0977 pp his part La App 15 4 Loston on La relevantly tending La present intention a 874 So 2d 197 205 06 writ denied 2004 0792 La 128 00 the fact State prosecutions where any act of the victim that means reasonable person has held the defendant 7 8 11 12 99 on used in connection with 11 12 882 So 2d 1167 this as bodily harm 1st Cir 2 23 04 App 404 overt act of self defense is involved plea manifests to term distinct purposes of the 1 to apprehension of danger which would justify determine who Only evidence of general reputation and 13 was not the aggressor in the conflict specific acts is admissible in order to specific show whom the aggressor acts of the victim against When evidence of purpose explain defendant s reasonable be introduced acts may in the conflict was dangerous apprehension shown that the accused knew of the victim offense Loston 2003 0977 at pp In Brooks 11 13 constituted at the lunging an overt hostile of evidence of the victim trial had court the evidence defendant after act given at the with her hand behind her back and second shot aimed low a court held that in light the even basis there was no actually appreciable had a the time of the this court defendant and warning shots had to decide the been fired admissibility This court held the testimony weight of the to be accorded testimony of the defendant and the of an In Jackson overt act justifying the 419 So 2d at 426 27 hitting the victim in the leg acts s and another a warning eyewitness s testimony toward the defendant the trial evidence of inquiry in that an overt act case was weapon behind her back 14 by not shot The supreme the admission of victim character evidence Court noted that the relevant victim at the after the defendant fired of the defendant precluding it is only if defendant advanced toward the defendant regarding the victim s aggressive had elTed in at directed appreciable evidence cursing reputation the inconsistent admission of victim character evidence the victim while of mind for purposes of determining the allowing the jury was state s allegedly violent character As such eyewitness there danger evidence of specific 734 So 2d at 1238 39 war improperly weighed witnesses rather than to s to pursuit with three friends of the defendant and his female friend the victim s threat of s s character is offered 13 14 874 So 2d at 206 07 98 1151 at pp found that the victim s active the victim of show the accused to prior third party is inadmissible for this a victim s a Evidence of court on the victim whether but whether or or not the The the not the defendant could reasonably believe she did defendant could have of death discovered reasonably believed that she great bodily harm or on or near in imminent case no the victims in Brooks and Jackson believed to be a against gun shoot the defendant Jackson the victim threshold of which appreciable evidence would manifest intention his on defendant part to statements s in the kill or of self defense impact Alexander acts of specific assessment harm s impaired Thus testimony as we to by find reversible specific the acts the as cannot be regarded See also Brooks Lee 331 So 2d 455 s to assignment defendant harmless right s La 15 to 16 734 1975 La the previously reject the to the knowledge of to s the jury present judge s a as s critical defense refusal to was allow by the defendant and error has merit The present evidence of his See Jackson 419 So 2d 98 1151 at p 461 of on apprehension of serious s in the trial error present a speculate on to by the victim decision the defendant to object find that the We have inappropriate right an met based was jury of violence known This victim defense v harm of Green supported constitutional a State bodily testimony we reasonable person the victim may have had substantial curtailment of rehearing a an of the reasonableness of the defendant The defendant s committed overt act testimony regarding by As the verbally threatened establish Nonetheless it is violence side and court do great and the s by the trial mind of concluded that the evidence herein plea to 419 approached the argued the victim pressed the defendant As concluded was weapon defendant and summoned him toward the back of the trailer defendant and the victim scuffled and danger 12 734 So 2d at 1238 the defendant and Green to was As in the instant So 2d at 427 430 Brooks 98 1151 at p According The Court concluded the 2d So at 1240 Code Crim P at 431 n 6 art on citing 921 Thus we reverse the conviction the vacate trial in accordance with law and the views and remand for sentence a new expressed herein OTHER ASSIGNMENTS Having found reversible numbers four errors following regarding five the eight seven and we the note assignment of error number three the defendant argues that the trial are highly likely to defendant notes scene officers did recur of Error Number Three allowing the defendant not that Vito search Vito defendant argues that his s residence to gun and the from the opportunity to The defendant further case right a had the admittedly in the instant question Vito to prior incident wherein Vito hid from the However ten assigned numbers three six court erred in not a discussion of a error Assignment about pretermit we remaining assignments of and nine since the issues In error vehicle for such or present a defense was a police The police remove notes a gun that the weapon The curtailed in this regard As noted herein scene the During the Vito cross following question occasion involving concerns objection but noted hidden a prepared gun from to Have you The State as to I gun from the examination of Officer Redditt the defense asked as an Ronald Vito that you gun from officers Having repeatedly denied removing the officer at St Gabriel had an investigated where he had hid a objected before the officer could respond possible prejudice truly believe that they police before the trial can court sustained the ask him Vito if he s ever The trial court warned the State to be revisit the issue if Vito took the stand examination of Vito the defense asked the Vito this whole issue about you ever taking 16 a During the following question gun and hiding cross Now Mr it from the police you ve done that defense thing before right same presented argument pursuant to sustained the State court was that such During redirect examination the convicted felon The defense argued The defense sought court did not responded that the State to testimony regarding trial Vito picked up a No sir wouldn t opened the allow such questioning not status an as a knowing he pick up no gun questioning the above prior incident wherein he held and fired a would s gun door for further impeach The trial regarding such State reiterated Vito Vito in order to question testimony convicted of a crime convicted felon and asked him if he would have was a objection the s La Code Evid art 607D objection stating s be admissible unless the witness incident After the State a quoted The gun on re cross The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I 9 16 of the Louisiana Constitution guarantee the accused in prosecution the right US 14 15 to present 87 S Ct 1920 examination Davis 1109 10 39 L Ed 2d 347 As a general examining him to or rule her defense 1921 purpose of confrontation is to cross a v secure Alaska 415 U S 308 scope and extent of State v credibility of a La concerning cross 94 S Ct 1105 any matter or her having a testimony a witness reasonable La by tendency Code Evid 743 So 2d 199 201 art The examination is within the discretion of the trial not be disturbed absent Code Evid witness 315 16 of opportunity party may attack the credibility of Garrison 400 So 2d 874 Although The essential 1974 a judge whose ruling will criminal Texas 388 v 1967 for the defendant the Smith 98 2045 p 3 La 9 8 99 v Washington 18 L Ed 2d 1019 disprove the truthfulness of his 607C State See a 878 607 abuse of discretion La 1981 art an by examining 17 him permits a concerning party to attack the any matter having a reasonable is tendency to necessarily subject the to La Code Evid art 607D 2 attacked the truthfulness of his disprove relevancy testimony this grant balance of La Code Evid art provides that the credibility of a witness by extrinsic evidence probative value of the evidence unless the court the issue of on or unfair Based is credibility substantially the in the record it appears that the trial court may proffer have abused its discretion in Vito testified that he Evidence that Vito despite as prohibiting the attack of Vito convicted felon a previously possessed the above noted testimony is would and secreted Thus while and remand for grounds constitutional assignment of Assignment In right error to was assignment of portrayed notes 5 as some s error the State and was a gun police presents little if note that impaired the conviction the defendant s as argued in ofthe record appeal without La bad person a a of the on question defense witness Alexander to arrests prior arrests In addition to testimonial evidence part gun from the we reverse we up number six the defendant argues that the trial as were that the State asked about defendant s defense a 389 So 2d 372 the defendant planned to a present allowing Johnson argues that other pick not s number three about the defendant v on credibility s of Error Number Six court erred in State trial a highly probative any risk of confusion of the issues a new of the See also La Code Evid art 403 prejudice on may be determines that the outweighed by the risks of undue consumption of time confusion issues 403 an a 1980 pretrial hearing pursuant The defendant argues that he result of the questioning mischaracterized arrest for to a drug and further The defendant also offense a crime which from Officer Redditt and Vito it appears that and seal further evidence Such evidence was not made proffer appeal and sought the existence brief 18 or content thereof is not mentioned in the has relevance no to the defendant concludes that the Alexander with her at children character witness a testified that defendant the time of the offense and that he is the father of was not a was living one of her violent person examination of Alexander the State elicited the cross The testimony was highly prejudicial Alexander stated that the defendant the During trait involved in the instant offense specific following testimony Q You know character Mr Let know that he A Myles asked talked s was sic you about Jarvis Hasten s about his character Do you arrested for distribution Yes Q Distribution of what A Q Cocaine I that s mean He killing A good right here in jail This is before this went to jail for drugs selling drugs right a Uh huh affinnative Q Huh How many times A Two three Q Two three times for At this point the defense attorney lodged overruled and the line of the State there The objection continued questioning or you ever noting In State When a this on objection Following the Bagley Johnson opened the 378 So 2d 1356 defendant chooses introducing evidence was objection as the State also used the The defense attorney later moved for testimony citing that the defendant v However heard do you remember mistrial based motion an over carefully phrased further questioning using such language you ve heard language Mr Hasten selling drugs to of his to court denied the such testimony 1358 La 1979 place good 19 door The trial the Court stated his character at issue character the a State by is permitted to rebut such evidence either by calling witnesses to testify to the bad character of the defendant or by impeaching the defense witnesses ability to testify to the defendant s character This Court has adopted the position that the cross examination of a character witness may extend to his knowledge of particular misconduct prior arrests or other acts relevant to the particular moral qualities as are pertinent to the crime with which the defendant is charged The purpose of such inquiries is to expose the witnesses possible lack of knowledge regarding the character of the defendant evaluation or the witnesses standard of Citations omitted In Johnson 389 So 2d at 375 and 377 the Louisiana recognized the potential for abuse of character witness posed by its interpretation of La for the prosecution knowledge for future of prior other crimes committed not arrests particular Johnson judge before 389 permitting character witness if he knows at 376 77 the on rumors the Johnson Court determining examining the the character certain safeguards character a that the defendant has reputation vouched for to cross examine the of misconduct of the accused should as Johnson to question whether he has credible 389 So 2d at 376 77 to assist trial about convictions arrests or misconduct of the accused 1 that there is of the rumor question as to the fact of the subject matter that is of the previous arrest conviction or other no pertinent misconduct of the defendant 6 Repealed by 1988 La Acts No 515 9 8 20 The judges prosecutor has reasonable grounds for witness on Further the Court ruled that the trial prosecuting attorney question error that the accused has committed adopted the following guidelines whether reversible examination has heard prosecutor in the absence of the jury grounds for asking not adopted on cross inconsistent with the 2d So it is examination cross defense character witness about his a whether he acts 816 of the defendant and be asked but rather direct the question 15 479 The Court luled that cases witness should to R S Supreme Court in cross other 2 that reasonable likelihood exists that the a conviction previous arrest other pertinent misconduct would have been bruited about the neighborhood or community prior to the alleged or commission of the offense that neither the event 3 occurred at that 4 a time the accused is conduct nor event rumor misconduct or specific trait involved on the concerning it from the present offense too remote the earlier concerned the or trial on and the rumor in the offense for which trial and that the examination will be conducted in the proper form that is Have you heard etc not Do you know etc 5 If the conclusion is reached to allow the informed of its charge exact purpose Johnson 389 2d So Due to the defendant on did the particular not failure s court to Johnson the Louisiana the issue of a trial defendant court must tender conduct such a The Louisiana Johnson delineated a to avail Johnson failure s 389 to conduct prosecution the jury 158 s See State v a safeguards it to that in order to preserve Johnson Smith v in Johnson hearing for review a to the court s failure to 430 So 2d 31 44 question was 8 n even safeguards regulating the prosecution La though s cross whether or not examination unduly prejudiced the defendant before Sepulvado 93 2692 167 cert denied 519 U S 934 Arguably in the Subsequent Supreme Court also later ruled that numerous cross himself of the contemporaneous objection See State court So 2d at 377 examination of character witnesses the ultimate the or contemporaneous objection Supreme Court indicated hearing a make found troublesome the allow the defendant before it in that decision 1983 either at the conclusion thereof be at 376 grounds the adopted interrogation the jury should the defense examination of Alexander was not p 12 117 S Ct 310 La 4 8 96 136 L Ed 2d 227 unduly prejudiced by See State 21 v Asberry 672 So 2d the State 99 3056 p 8 1996 s cross La App 1st Cir 01 16 2 808 So 2d 472 810 So 2d 1154 in rebuttal The the to cross examined on 611B mi examination testimony concernmg the defendant 608C provides or witness 704 by other we See State cert 771 72 1997 that the trial court should court erred in A witness La case examined be may cross Code Evid relevant concerning La Code Evid rebut Koon v examined cross bearing upon his testimony elicited 96 1208 522 U S 1001 25 p La from a new trial out of an a 5 20 97 118 S Ct 570 139 the instant conviction is reversed as as on abundance caution comply with the safeguards of Johnson on Number Nine of error number nine the defendant argues that the trial The had photographs that Dr Suarez had defendant case of sheds any evidentiary no concludes was photographic light of the victim The defendant purpose to that the only or purpose for were the incite the jurors emotions evidence any photograph upon any factor at issue in the represents the person place The defendant already testified when the photographs introduction of the photographs any fact by the defense of that witness admitting gruesome photographs contends that the In the Alexander requested by the defendant assignment admitted acts to denied Nonetheless Assignment of Error In right the defense remand if so notes particular grounds and remanded for note in direct response and untruthfulness of another witness may be The State has the L Ed 2d 410 cross La 3 8 02 A witness who has testified to the character for 756 2d So from was See La Code Evid art 405A whether he has heard about credibility issue any matter relevant to any issue in the Character witnesses may be truthfulness to elicited at good character s specific instances of conduct mi 478 writ denied 2001 0749 thing depicted 22 that illustrates case is admissible or reliably provided its probative value outweighs p La 1 26 00 18 S Ct 104 any 775 So 2d 1022 148 L Ed 2d 62 2000 its evidence and postmortem death location and well as identification of the victim v Maxie 93 2158 photographs of the victim prove corpus delicti death court the identity s ruling or that the inadmissible State v are introduced body at only 2d So scene 526 532 outweighs its probative does not 115 S Ct 450 photograph of value 130 L Ed 2d 359 of the deceased was as Accordingly was evidence of the victim s death to we the whether the defendant find no error or admitting this photograph A trial The identity and if The fact them It was the victim s single photograph cause was of death of the possessed the requisite intent to kill We find that 23 only admitted for identification abuse of discretion lacks merit of 1994 admitted during the autopsy It to 637 So 2d 1012 and to cause itself render scene clearly probative and relevant Thus severity of wounds testimony of Chief Ambeau who viewed as 8 establish to the purposes and n State generally admissible are of cause provide positive during the victim and to Davis 92 1623 p 24 La 5 23 94 one admissible of such evidence will be disturbed gruesome 1026 cert denied 513 U S 975 Herein 653 location and of the evidence photographs are establishing corroborate other evidence and admissibility prejudicial effect 95 the murder the number the on at of murder victims of wounds and 121 the moral force of to 96 1208 at p 34 704 So 2d at 776 10 4 La Casey 99 0023 v denied 531 U S 840 cert other evidence placement Koon 11 p State The State is entitled to corroborate delicti as 1037 photographs to prove corpus effect prejudicial assignment by of the trial court in error number nine REVIEW FOR ERROR The defendant asks that this La Code Crim P such error whether Code Crim P discoverable by or This 920 2 art not such 920 2 art a mere court a examine the record for court routinely request is made by we inspection inspection of the evidence Except are of the pleadings as proceedings reversible Price errors Cir 12 28 06 La Supreme See State v 952 So 2d 112 Court REVERSE on defendant Under La our and review to 123 25 we do 2005 2514 pp en banc errors proceedings without previously noted herein after review of the record in these under reviews the record for a limited in error not note 18 22 careful any further La petition for a cert App filed 1st at 1 24 07 2007 K 130 CONVICTION REMAND FOR A NEW TRIAL 24 AND VACATE SENTENCE
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.
