State Of Louisiana VS Josie Y. Morgan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 KA 2060 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JOSIE Y MORGAN DATE OF JUDGMENT JUN 0 7 2013 ON APPEAL FROM TI TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NLJMBER 08 DIVISION A PARISH OF EAST FELICIANA 296 CR STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE GEORGE H WARE JR JUDGE Samuel C Aquilla D District Attomey Clinton Louisiana Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana and Stewart B Hughes Special Assistant District Attorney St Francisville Louisiana Benn Hamilton Baton Rouge Louisiana Counsel for Defendant Appellant Josie Y Margan x BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ Disposition CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED I KUHN J The defendant Josie Y Morgan was charged by grand jury indictment with second degree murder a violation of La R 1430 The defendant entered a S 1 plea of not guilty R 1 Following a trial by jury the defendant was found guilty as charged R 13 1063 The trial court denied the defendant smotion for postverdict judgment of acquitta and motion for new trial The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole probation or suspension of The defendant now appeals assigning sentence error to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction the admission of expert testimony the violation of her right to present a defense and prosecutorial misconduct For the following reasons we affirm the conviction and sentence STATEMENT OF FACTS On Saturday December 1 2007 Jonova Walker Charles Plain Lionel Allen and Andre Turner the victim had dinner at the defendant sresidence in Sweetbriar Trailer Park in Zachary According to trial testimony sometime after dinner the defendant Walker Allen and the victim left the defendant house s while Plain the defendant boyfriend at the time stayed at the defendant trailer s s for the night Walker and the defendant were riding in a Honda Accord and the victim and Allen were riding in a black Geo Storm After the group made a brief stop at a motel Walker followed the others as they travelled in the Geo Storm on The trial court failed to wait twenty hours to sentence the defendant after ruling on the four morion for postverdict judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial and no waiver was given See La C art 873 However since the defendant was sentenced to the mandatory sentence P Cr of life imprisonment the failure to waiY twenty hours after the denial of these post four trial motions was harmless error See State v Seals 95 La lll25 684 So 368 380 cert 0305 96 2d denied 520 U 1199 117 S 1558 137 L 705 199 State u Price OS La S Ct 2d Ed 2514 App lst Cir 12 952 So 112 123 en banc writ denied 07 La 2 06 28 2d 125 0130 22108 976 So 1277 2d 2 Scenic Highway When they turned off Scenic Highway onto Carney Road the Geo Storm swerved and came to an abrupt stop Allen and the victim exited the vehicle and began fighting According to Walker stestimony she and the defendant stepped out of their vehicles and the defendant grabbed a pipe wrench out of Walker vehicle and s repeatedly hit the victim in the back of the head Allen and the defendant continued to beat the victim as he attempted to get off the gound and begged for his life The victim managed to get up and run from the defendant and Allen who then got back into the Geo and pursued the victim with the defendant driving Walker got back in the Honda Accord and followed them a short distance as they approached the next corner Walker testified that when she turned the corner behind the Geo she saw the Geo stopped with its front tire resting on top of the s victim back The defendant then backed the vehicle off of the victim body s and she and Allen placed his body in the front passenger seat Walker followed in the other vehicle as they drove to a nearby wooded area The defendant and Allen dragged the victim body into the woods and set it on s fire On December 3 2007 the East Feliciana Parish Sheriff Office received a s call regarding the discovery of the victim body in a wooded area According to s the autopsy performed on December 5 2007 the victim suffered multiple lethal force blunt injuries to the head fractured ribs a broken sternum lacerations on the back of his lungs and liver internal bleeding a fractured pelvis and his entire body was badly burned including charring from fourth burns degree Walker specifically testified that they went to Sceruc Highway Motel to count money The facts surrounding the money that was acquired and being counted at the motel that night were not fully introduced However Spence Dilworth formerly the chief of detectives at the West Feliciana Pazish Sheriff s Office testified that his involvement in this case began with an initial call concerning 6taken from the victim of an anned robbery at approximately 2 a on 00 000 30 m Sunday December 2 He ultimately concluded that the defendant Walker and the victim herein were involved in the robbery According to Dilworth police statements further indicated that the group also went to the motel to use drugs 3 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS ONE TWO AND THREE In assignments of error numbers one two and three the defendant challenges the evidence presented in support of the verdict Specifically she contends that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence assignment of error number one that the verdict is not supported by sufficient and competent evidence assignment of error number two and that the trial court erred in not granting her postverdict judgment of acquittal assignment of error number three The defendant argues that the jury was unable to properly assess Walker and s Plain credibility since they avoided being confronted with recordings of their prior inconsistent statements by immediately admitting that they previously lied to the police She further contends that the jury would have in all likelihood found that Walker and Plain testimony was not credible if it had heard their audiotaped s statements testimony The defendant asserts that the State presented false and untrue that was constructed cosmetically re to fit the intents and purposes of a lying witness The defendant contends that the evidence presented during the trial indicates that Walker was more involved in the events than she revealed Finally the defendant asserts that the witness testimony in this case should have been subject to heightened scrutiny due to the history of lies The constitutional standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence as enunciated in Jackson v ViPginia 443 U 307 99 S 2781 61 L 560 S Ct 2d Ed 1979 requires that a conviction be based on proof sufficient for any rational fact of trier viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt La C P Cr art 821 State v Ordodi 06 La 1 U29 946 So 654 660 0207 06 2d In conducting this review we also must be expressly mindful of Louisiana s circumstantial evidence test i assuming every fact to be proved that the e 4 evidence tends to prove in order to convict it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence La R 15 State v Wright 98 La App 1 st S 438 0601 Cir 2 730 So 485 486 writs denied 99 La 10 748 99 19 2d 0802 99 29 2d So 1157 0895 00 La 11 773 So 732 00 17 2d When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the trier reasonably rejects the hypothesis of fact of innocence presented by the defense that hypothesis falls and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis that raises a reasonable doubt State v Moten 510 So 55 61 La App lst Cir writ denied 514 So 126 La 2d 2d 1987 Second degree murder is defined in pertinent part as the killing of a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm La R 14 Specific criminal intent is that state of mind which exists S 30 A 1 when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal conseyuences to follow his act or failure to act La R 14 S 10 1 Though intent is a question of fact it need not be proven as a fact It may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction Thus specific intent may be proven by direct evidence such as statements by a defendant or by inference from circumstantial evidence such as a defendant actions or facts depicting the s circumstances Specific intent is an ultimate legal conclusion to be resolved by the fact of trier State u Buchanon 95 La App lst Cir 5 673 So 0625 96 10 2d 663 665 writ denied 96 La 12 684 So 923 1411 96 6 2d Dr Karen Ross a forensic pathologist with the Jefferson Parish Coroner s Office at the time of the offense performed an autopsy on the victim two days after his body was found She testified that the victim cause of death was s multiple blunt injuries alone or in association with smoke inhalation and force thermal injury because the body had been burned after blunt injuries were farce 5 sustained She noted that although the injuries were lethal the victim could have still been alive at the time he was set on fire because there was a small amount of soot located in his airway indicating that he took in a few breaths and there was aspiration of some ofthe gastric materials She stated that the victim entire body s was on fire and was largely charred by fourth burns The victim sustained degree multiple blunt injuries to the head with at least fifteen different areas of force lacerations Some of the head injuries were sharp ar triangulated while others were longer Blood located beneath the victim scalp indicated he was alive s when he sustained the head trauma Dr Ross stated that the lacerations and hemorrhage in the victim scalp and s head area were consistent with being struck with an object like a bat ar pipe The victim also had fractured ribs a broken sternum lacerations on the back of both lungs and the iver internal bleeding and a fractured pelvis Dr Ross stated that it would have taken a lot of farce in fracturing the large bones and that the bodily injuries were consistent with the victim being hit or run over by a car The victim was alive when he sustained the bodily injuries The victim had defensive wounds on two fingers on his right hand consisting of lacerations one of which went into the nail bed and the palm of his right hand was relatively spared from some of the thermal injury Based on his stomach contents it was estimated that approximately two hours lapsed between the victim last meal and the estimated s rime of his death State witness Joshua Jones the victim cousin saw the victim on the night s in question when he was still alive Jones testified that sometime between 11 00 m p and midnight he saw the victim the defendant and Walker leave a junkyard on East Flanacher Road in Port Hudson in a black car being driven by Walker 6 At approximately 4 p on December 3 Detective Don McKey of the 30 m East Feliciana Parish Sheriff Office who was the lead detective in the instant s case responded to the wooded area where the victim body was located s Detective McKey testified that a piece of paper containing Walker name and s telephone number was found near the body His investigation including statements from Walker Allen Jones Samuel Territo and Mary Jack the s defendant mother ultimately led him to believe that the vicrim was with the defendant and Walker during the overnight hours between December 1 and December 2 On December 6 Detective McKey interviewed Walker the defendant and Plain The defendant did not make a statement and though Walker admitted to being with the defendant and the victim on the night in question she initially did not provide details surrounding the victim murder and denied that s the victim or Allen were at the defendant strailer that night Plain indicated that the defendant stayed home with him on the night in question The East Feliciana Parish Sheriff Office requested and received a certified s copy of an insurance policy issued April 20 2006 with the victim as the insured and the defendant as the primary beneficiary After being arrested for obstruction of justice Plain provided statements consistent with his trial testimony Similarly on November 19 2008 Walker finally provided statements and information consistent with her trial testimony During his trial testimony Plain admitted that he lied when he first spoke to the police in March 2008 in an effort to protect the defendant He testified that Allen the victim Walker the defendant and he were present at the defendant s trailer that night and the defendant cooked dinner Plain stayed at the trailer when the other four individuals left at about 8 pm He testified that the defendant 00 7 I and Walker returned at about 2 am Plain further testified that the defendant 00 and Walker were acting strange and jumping when they returned Walker indicated that she and the defendant were close friends and like sisters at the time ofthe offense According to her trial testimony she watched as the defendant and Al1en severely beat the victim as he tried to get up off the ground After the defendant hit the victim with the car and drove him to the wooded area Walker witnessed the defendant and Allen drag the victim body s into the woods She also saw Allen remove a container of gas out of her car but could not actually see the fire being set from where she was standing According to Walker Allen was still with them when they went back to the strailer after the murder Walker further noted that the defendant had defendant blood splattered all over her face They entered through the back doar and the defendant immediately removed her clothing and took a shower After unsuccessful attempts to remove the blood from the car interior the defendant and Walker took the vehicle to Sam Territo property where they stripped and s discarded some of the interior including door panels and seating Days later they retrieved the partially stripped car and abandoned it in a Wal parking lot in Mart Port Allen After her arrest Walker asked a sexual partner Kenneth Sterling to go to the Wal and handle the car Mart Walker admitted that she lied to the police during interviews that took place soon after the victim body was discovered and her arrest and again in March s 2008 She indicated that she did not want to give the police any information because she did not want the defendant to go to jail adding that she was also personally concerned about avoiding going to jail When she finally came forward to P rovide details about the murder in November 2008 she a 1 so informed the police of the location where the victim was initially beaten and the nearby location 8 where he was hit with the car She also escorted them to the property where the discarded portions ofthe vehicle sinterior were located Walker admitted that the State reduced the second degree murder charge against her to obstruction ofjustice in exchange for her testimony as shown in the written plea agreement subsequently introduced by the defense She nonetheless specifically stated that she came forward because she just couldn hold it in t anymare and repeatedly asserted that her trial testimony was truthful During examination cross she again admitted to repeatedly providing statements in the past that were inconsistent with her trial testimony and sending the police on a wild goose chase as to the location of evidence but denied beating the victim or hitting him with the car She denied having any scratches or injuries from the night in question Consistent with Walker testimony Sterling testified that when Walker s called him after her arrest and asked him to burn her car he did so He stated that he poured gas on and under the vehicle and lit it with a match while it was in a Mart Wal parking lot Sterling noted that he initially lied to the police about setting the car on fire Sam Territo testified that he had known the defendant well since she was a little girl and talked to her relatively frequently He further stated that he would more than likely recognize her voice over the telephone The defendant brother s warked for Territo and lived on his property in Pointe Coupee at the time of the murder According to Tenito the defendant contacted him by phone once or twice and once in person in December 2007 regarding leaving a car on his property The defendant told him that the car needed repairs and that someone would come and repair it Territo agreed and the car was stored on his property 9 for a period of time Territo gave the police permission to search his property when Walker led them to that location in late November 2008 The defendant mother Mary Lee Jack also testified as a State witness s According to her testimony the day before she saw the news story about the s victim death the defendant told her that she was in trouble and that she hit someone in the head with a bat and that the person fall out The defendant also mentioned a fire at Thompson Creek and that something happened to the victim After Jack saw the news story about the victim death she concluded that her s conversation with her daughter was relevant and gave a statement to the police The victim first cousin Nicole Turner testified that when she saw the s defendant while shopping in June 2007 the defendant showed her a life insurance policy in the victim name and stated that the victim was worth more to her dead s than alive The defendant further informed Turner that she made certain to keep up the payments on the policy Among the cell phone records introduced by the State it was shown that the s defendant cell phone was used on December 1 at 10 p in Zachary The 33 m scell phone was used to call Walker defendant scell phone between Port Hudson and Baton Rouge starting at about 6 a on December 2 It was used to call 25 m Walker again later that morning in Gonzales at 7 and 7 a and to call 57 58 m Territo between 1036 and 1039 a m The defense called Officer Harold Edenfield and Louisiana State Police Trooper Troy Magallenes as witnesses in an attempt to illicit testimony regarding possible visible scars or scratches on Walker sface neck or shoulders following the victim murder Officer Edenfield who was employed by the West Feliciana s Parish Detention Center was present on December 6 2007 when Walker was arrested and booked Trooper Magallenes stopped Walker vehicle at 7 a s 40 m lo on December 2 and issued her an illegal window tint ticket Both witnesses testified that they did not recall any scars or scratches on Walker face and s further that they would have noted such an observance Trooper Magallenes observed blood in the front and back ofthe vehicle being driven by Walker When he questioned her Walker told him that she had a fight with her boyfriend and struck him with an object that was in the vehicle She was allowed to leave after the ticket was issued Defense witness Detective Terrance Miller of the East Feliciana Parish s Sheriff Office was called to the scene where the victim body was discovered s and took photographs Detective Miller corroborated Detective McKey s testimony that a slip of paper with Walker first name and phone number was s located at the scene within a few inches of the victim head Detective Miller s also confirmed that Walker gave prior accounts of what occurred that were inconsistent with her trial testimony For example he specifically confirmed that Walker initially stated that she and the victim were hit by another car while they were travelling down U Highway 61 and that someone struck her and the victim S with an object after they got out of the car The defendant did not testify The parties to crimes are classified as principals and accessories after the fact La R 1423 Principals are all persons concerned in the commission of a S crime whether present or absent and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense aid and abet in its commission or directly or indirectly counsel or procure another to commit the crime La R 14 Thus a general S 24 principle of accessorial liability is that when two or more persons embark on a concerted course of action each person becomes responsible for not only his own acts but also for the acts of the other State x Smith 07 La 10 23 2028 09 20 3d So 291 296 per curiam 11 In this case Walker clearly implicated the defendant in the murder of the victim specifically indicaring that the defendant actively participated in the brutal beating and that the defendant ran over the victim with the vehicle she was driving both resulting in lethal injuries Walker further testified that the defendant assisted in the burning of the victim body The testimony presented s by the victim mother as to the statements the defendant made shortly after the s offense was consistent with Walker stestimony The jury was fully aware of the fact that Walker provided several inconsistent p statements In the absence of ior internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence one s witness testimony if believed by the trier is sufficient to support a fact of factual conclusion State v Higgins 03 La 4 898 So 1219 1226 1980 OS 1 2d cert denied 546 U 883 126 S 182 163 L 187 Z005 Moreover the S Ct 2d Ed fact of trier is free to accept or reject in whole or in part the testimony of any witness The trier sdetermination of the weight to be given evidence is not fact of subject to appellate review An appellate court will not reweigh the evidence to overturn a trier sdetermination of guilt State v Taylor 97 La fact of 2261 App lst Cir 9 721 So 929 932 We are constitutionally precluded 98 25 2d from acting as a juror in assessing what weight to give evidence in thirteenth criminal cases See State u Mitchell 99 La 10 772 So 78 83 3342 00 17 2d The fact that the record contains evidence which conflicts with the testimony accepted by a trier does not render the evidence accepted by the trier fact of of fact insufficient State v Quinn 479 So 592 596 La App 1 st Cir 1985 2d The evidence need not show that the defendant acted alone See La C P Cr art 14 S 23 So3d at 296 The jury verdict reflected its reasonable 24 nith s conclusion that the defendant actively participated in the murder of the victim herein Accordingly we cannot say that the jury determination was irrational s 12 under the facts and circumstances presented to it See Ordodi 946 So at 662 2d Furthermore an appellate court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of the trier and thereby fact of overtuming a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to and rarionally rejected by the jury State v Calloway 07 La 2306 09 21 3d 1 1 So 417 418 per curiam We are convinced that any rational trier fact of viewing the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the State could have found the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence all of the elements of second degree murder and the defendant identity as the perpetrator Due to the s foregoing conclusions assignments of error numbers one two and three lack merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER FOUR In her fourth assignment of error the defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the 5tate to present ea testimony by Detective Spence pert Dilworth regarding technical aspects of cell phone calls and usage The defendant argues that Detective Dilworth did not possess specialized knowledge regarding the interpretation and explication of cell phone records and was not qualified to testify as an expert in that field Thus the defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing him to testify as an expert In this case the State did not attempt to qualify Detective Dilworth as an expert witness Therefore he testified as a lay witness Louisiana Code of Evidence article 701 limits a lay witness testimony in the form of opinions or s inferences to those opinions or inferences which are rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue A law officer may testify as to matters within 13 his personal knowledge acquired through experience without first being qualified as an expert See State u LeBlanc OS La App lst Cir 2 928 0885 06 10 2d So 599 603 However only experts are allowed to give opinion testimony in areas of specialized knowledge Under La C art 702 iscientific technical E f ar other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge skill experience training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise A reviewing court must ask two pertinent questions to determine whether the trial court properly allowed lay opinion testimony 1 was the testimony speculative opinion evidence or simply a recitation of or inferences from fact based upon the witness observations and 2 if erroneously s admitted was the testimony so prejudicial to the defense as to constitute reversible error 2d LeBlanc 928 So at 602 03 The trial court is vested with much discretion in determining which opinion testimony shall be received into evidence as lay or expert testimony State u Friday 1 La App lst Cir 6 2309 11 17 73 So 913 922 writ denied 11 La 4 85 So3d 1258 3d 1456 12 20 Detective Dilworth testified that he obtained subpoenas for the defendant and Walker cell phone records Defense counsel objected arguing that the s witness was not qualified to explain from a technical standpoint what the phone recards meant Before the trial court overruled ihe objection Detective Dilworth explained that he easily determined how to interpret the phone records noting that he may have called the telephone company as a precaution but that the recards were self and included headings such as called number to indicate explanatory the telephone that received the call and dialed digits to indicate a call that was made As routinely done the cell phone companies provided a spreadsheet that 14 listed the corresponding numbers used to identify towers and the address and GPS coordinates of the tower that the cell phone used when a call was made We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining it is acceptable for a lay witness to testify as to the calls made and received and the tower locations for the telephone calls A lay witness can infer and tell the jury what cell tower accepted the mobile phone signals at specific times based on that s witness examination of cell phone records Thus the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant objection s Accordingly assignment of error number four is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER FIVE In her fifth assignment of error the defendant argues that the trial court erred in not allowing her to present to the jury prior audiotaped statements by Walker and Plain The defendant contends that Walker numerous recorded s interviews displayed her personality and character including a tendency to be evasive manipulative and to conceal her involvement The defendant argues that she was prevented from presenting a compelling and crucial part of her defense when the trial court did not allow her to play Walker audiotaped statements s demonstrating how her stories changed The defendant specifically notes that initial statements by Walker and Plain indicated that the defendant was not involved in any of the criminal activities and that they changed their stories after interviews that took place on March 31 2008 The defendant specifically contends that the change in Walker story was triggered by Detective McKey s s false indication that the defendant was using her and attempting to place all ofthe blame on her The defendant further contends that Plain similarly changed his story after being coerced and threatened with 15 arrest and prosecution The defendant also notes that Walker negotiated a plea agreement in exchange for her testimony against the defendant The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I 16 of the Louisiana Constitution guarantee an accused in a criminal prosecution the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him This right includes the right to cross the prosecution witnesses Davis x Alaska 415 U 308 315 examine s S 16 94 S 1105 1ll0 39 L 347 1974 State v T 448 So Ct 2d Ed aughn 2d 1260 1267 La 1983 on rehearing Further an accused also has a constitutional right to present a defense Washington u TeYas 388 U 14 19 S 87 S 1920 1923 18 L 1019 1967 Cross is the primary Ct 2d Ed examination means of testing the truthfulness of testimony State x Robinso 01 La z 0273 02 17 5 817 So 1131 1135 2d During the trial as on appeal the defendant did not cite any statutory authority for the admissibility of the recorded interviews that include prior inconsistent statements After Plain testified defense counsel outside of the presence of the jury moved to play his entire police interview conducted on March 31 2008 In ruling that the interview could not be played in its entirery the trial court noted that Plain admitted in the presence of the jury that he lied on mare than one occasion but stated that his trial testimony was truthful The trial court ruled that it would allow two portions of the interview to be played specifically to address Plain failure to recall the police telling him the defendant used him as an s alibi and that he would be in prison with Derrick Todd Lee Defense counsel noted that he could not find those particular portions of the interview The trial court restated that the defendant would not be allowed to play the interview in its entirety and reiterated its ruling allowing the indicated portions to be played when located noting that there would be breaks during the course of the trial that wouid 16 allow defense counsel to search for those portions of the interview Defense counsel argued that it would be appropriate to play the whole interview in order to present a clear picture of this witness attempts to be evasive He further s argued that the defendant was on trial for her life in a murder case and that the entire interview was probative and important The trial court again stated that the defendant would not be allowed to play the entire interview and noted that defense counsel would have ample time to search the interviews for the portions previously ruled admissible since the trial would not be concluded that day Subsequently the trial court allowed the defendant to proffer Plain s recorded interview At that point defense counsel indicated that he also wished to play all of Walker interviews in their entirety and the trial court delayed ruling s on the request pending Walker stestimony After Walker testified the trial court denied the defendant request to play the interviews before the jury but allowed s iheir proffer The trial court noted that Walker admitted to repeatedly lying when confronted with prior inconsistent statements and further noted that law enforcement officers also testified that she lied and to them multiple stories d Additionally the trial court also noted that nothing would be gained by playing the interviews reiterating that the witness did not deny making any of the prior statements Generally a witness prior inconsistent statement may be used to impeach s his credibility La C art 607 Such evidence is admissible after the E 2 D 3 Under La C art 801 prior inconsistent statements may be admissible for their E a 1 D substantive or assertive value as well as for impeachment if the proper foundation is laid Specifically under Article 801 a prior statement by a witness is not hearsay in a criminal case D if the declazant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross concerning the examination statement and the statement is inconsistent with his testimony provided that the proponent has first fairly directed the wimess attention to the statement and the witness has been given the s opportuniry to admit the fact and where there exists any additional evidence to corroborate the matter asserted by the prior inconsistent statement In her appellate brief the defendant did not cite any legal authority supporting the instant assignment of error Furthermore she did not seek to apply Article 801 or to lay the proper foundation for its applicability during the trial 17 I proponent has first fairly directed the witness attention to the statement act or matter alleged and the witness has been given the opportunity to admit the fact and has failed distinctly to do so La C art 613 Once the foundation is E sufficient far a prior inconsistent statement the statement is subject to the balancing test of La C art 607 which requires the court to determine E 2 D whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risks of undue consumption of time confusion of the issues or unfair prejudice State v Juniors 03 La 6 915 So 291 330 cert denied 547 U l l 15 2425 OS 29 2d S 126 S 1940 164 L 669 2006 Moreover the admissibility of evidence Ct 2d Ed under La C art 607 is also subject to the balancing standard of La C art E E 403 which states that a relevant evidence may be excluded if its lthough probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice confusion of the issues or misleading the jury or by considerations of undue delay or waste of time A trial judge determination regarding the relevancy and s admissibility of evidence will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion Friday 73 So at 925 3d As noted by the trial court Plain and Walker repeatedly admitted to lying to the police and making specific statements that were wholly inconsistent with or their trial testimony when confronted with prior inconsistent statements If a witness admits a prior inconsistent statement he has impeached himself by his own testimony and thus the prior inconsistent statement is not admissible under Article 607 State u Savoie 448 So 129 134 La App lst Cir writ denied 2d 449 So 1345 La 1984 State u McGee 07 La App 5th Cir 6 2d 130 07 26 963 So 449 453 As further noted by the trial court the defendant achieved all 2d she could accomplish by having the witnesses repeatedly admit to making prior inconsistent statements The trial testimony regarding prior inconsistent 18 statements by Plain and Walker was very extensive and the witnesses were subjected to intense examination cross regarding those prior statements Moreover the police officers gave specific testimony regarding the content of the prior inconsistent statements made by the witnesses As indicated by the trial court playing the interviews in their entirety involved the risk of undue consumption of time Considering the foregoing we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court ruling regarding the admissibility of the extrinsic evidence at s issue The fifth assignment of error is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER SIX In her siath assignment of error the defendant argues that the prosecution knowingly presented false and perjured testimony and evidence to the jury The defendant specifically contends that State wimesses Walker and Plain were coached and that their pretrial recorded audio statements should have given the prosecution serious concerns as to their veracity and reliability The defendant or argues that the presentation of their trial tesrimony to the jury as state evidence raised serious questions regarding intentional prosecutorial misconduct and professional ethical violations The record discloses no contemporaneous objection raising claims of prosecutorial misconduct An irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence See La C art E 1 A 103 La C art 841 Accordingly the defendant has waived any P Cr A error based on this allegation by her failure to enter a contemporaneous objection See State u Sisk 444 So 315 316 La App lst Cir 1983 writ denied 446 2d 2d So 1215 La 1984 Moreover the mere fact that Walker and Plain gave prior inconsistent statements does not prove that they testified falsely at trial Walker and Plain 19 testified that they previously lied to the police to protect the defendant and were coming forward with the truth at trial Thus these witnesses provided an explanation for inconsistencies between their trial testimony and their pretrial statements At any rate it cannot be presumed that a prosecutor has knowledge that a witness answers are false simply because the witness may have made s conflicting statements on a prior occasion Thus the defendant has shown no error or entitlement to a new trial on this basis since she has failed to show that the statements at issue are actually false or that the prosecution knew they were false and acted in collusion with the witnesses to facilitate false testimony See United States v O 128 F3d 885 893 Sth Cir 199 cert denied 523 U 1078 Keefe 7 S 118 S 1525 140 L 676 1998 See also State v Broadway 96 Ct 2d Ed 2659 La 10 753 So 801 814 cert denied 529 U 1056 120 S 1562 99 19 2d S Ct 146 L 466 La 2000 State u Williams 338 So 672 677 La 1976 2d Ed 2d 78 Thus we find that assignment of error number six lacks merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 20
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.
