State Of Louisiana VS Christopher Scieneaux
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 0791 STATE OF LOUISIANA n VERSUS CHRISTOPHER SCIENEAUX Judgment Rendered October 29 2010 APPEALED FROM THE TWENTYTHIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ASCENSION STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 21498 DIVISION D THE HONORABLE JANE TRICHEMILAZZO JUDGE EMEMEM Ricky L Babin District Attorney s Attorneys for Appellee State of Louisiana Donaldsonville Louisiana and Donald D Candell Assistant District Attorney Gonzales Louisiana Andre Belanger Baton Rouge Louisiana Attorney for DefendantAppellant Christopher Scieneaux BEFORE WHIPPLE McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ M cuc arm A s 3 1 kInA5 MCDONALD I The defendant Christopher Scieneaux was charged by bill of information with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm a violation of La R S A 1 95 14 having been previously convicted of simple burglary He pled not guilty Following a jury trial he was found guilty as charged by unanimous verdict He was sentenced to eleven and onehalf years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence reconsideration of sentence but the motion was denied He moved for He now appeals contending the trial court erred in denying the motion for mistrial For the following reasons we affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS On February 23 2007 Roxie Parent was employed at United Community Bank at 12328 Louisiana Highway 44 in Gonzales She alerted Calvin Aldridge the bank security officer that she saw a man later identified as the defendant s stooping down beside bank employee Sandy Lamotte vehicle When Aldridge s and Lamotte approached the defendant to investigate what he was doing he had already removed one hubcap and was in the process of removing another hubcap Aldridge attempted to question the defendant about what he was doing but the defendant walked away with a crowbartire tool and fled in a vehicle which he had parked at the office next to the bank Aldridge alerted the police to the incident and provided them with the license plate number and description of the vehicle in which the defendant had fled Thereafter Sergeant Rex Wiley of the Ascension Parish Sheriffs Office initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle which was registered to the defendant The defendant was the only occupant of the vehicle After Sergeant Wiley ordered the defendant out of the vehicle the defendant repeatedly asked to be allowed to return to the vehicle to get a cigarette Sergeant Wiley refused to allow the defendant to return to his vehicle Thereafter Ascension Parish Sheriffs Office Deputies Dykes and Griffin arrived to provide backup Deputy Griffin advised the defendant of his Miranda rights and asked him if he had been in the parking lot of the bank approximately ten or fifteen minutes earlier The defendant initially denied being in the parking lot but when confronted with evidence that he had in fact been there he confessed to trying to take hubcaps from a car Deputy Griffin then approached the defendant vehicle s and on the passenger seat saw a 12 gauge pumpaction shotgun with pistol grips A subsequent criminal history check of the defendant indicated he was a convicted felon At trial the State established the defendant had been convicted of simple burglary and had completed his sentence for that offense on July 13 2004 NOTICE OF INCULPATORY STATEMENT In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying the motion for mistrial because the State violated La C arts 716 P Cr and 768 by failing to give notice of the defendant inculpatory statement s Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure art 716 in pertinent part provides B Upon motion of the defendant the court shall order the district attorney to inform the defendant of the existence but not the contents of any oral confession or statement of any nature made by the defendant which the district attorney intends to offer in evidence at the trial with the information as to when where and to whom such oral confession or statement was made Miranda v Arizona 384 U 436 86 S 1602 16 L 694 1966 S Ct 2d Ed 3 C Upon motion of the defendant the court shall order the district attorney to inform the defendant of the substance of any oral statement which the state intends to offer in evidence made by the defendant whether before or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person then known to the defendant to be a law enforcement officer Further La C art 768 provides P Cr Unless the defendant has been granted pretrial discovery if the state intends to introduce a confession or inculpatory statement in evidence it shall so advise the defendant in writing prior to beginning the state opening statement If it fails to do so a confession or s inculpatory statement shall not be admissible in evidence An inculpatory statement under Article 768 is one made out of court after a crime has been committed admitting a fact circumstance or involvement which tends to establish guilt or from which guilt may be inferred State v Thames 95 2105 p 4 La App 1st Cir 9 681 So 480 484 writ denied 962563 96 27 2d La 3 691 So 80 97 21 2d Failure of the State to comply with discovery procedures does not automatically command reversal The purpose of giving a defendant sufficient notice of an inculpatory statement or any other evidence the State intends to use is to give the defendant a fair opportunity to meet the issue If a defendant is misled by State responses relative to its possession of an inculpatory statement or other evidence is lulled into a misapprehension of the strength of the State case and s suffers prejudice when the evidence is subsequently introduced at trial basic unfairness results which constitutes reversible error The court must review the entire record and determine whether any prejudice may have resulted from the noncompliance which caused the jury to reach the wrong conclusion Thames 952105 at pp 45 681 So at 484 See also State v Francis 20002800 p 6 2d 4 La App 1 st Cir 9 809 So 1029 1033 The technical failures to comply 01 28 2d with pretrial discovery articles are not dispositive of the ultimate issue before this court Despite the fact that defendant was not provided notice of the oral statement in pretrial discovery or by the article 768 notice itself reversal of the conviction is not appropriate Even if the prosecution fails to provide the proper notice the error may be harmless if the other evidence against defendant is overwhelming citations omitted Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 729 prescribes sanctions for 5 failure to honor a discovery right leaving in the trial judge discretion the s decision of whether to order a mistrial or enter any such other order other than dismissal as may be appropriate As is pertinent here La C art 775 P Cr provides that a mistrial shall be ordered when prejudicial conduct in or outside the courtroom makes it impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial However a mistrial is a drastic remedy which should be granted only when the defendant suffers such substantial prejudice that he has been deprived of any reasonable expectation of a fair trial Determination of whether a mistrial should be granted is within the sound discretion of the trial court and the denial of a motion for mistrial will not be disturbed on appeal without abuse of that discretion State v Berry 951610 p 7 La App 1st Cir 11 684 So 439 449 writ denied 96 8 2d 97 0278 La 10 703 So 603 97 2d Ascension Parish Sheriff Department Sergeant Jeff Griffin assisted in the s traffic stop of the defendant He saw the shotgun on the passenger seat of the s s defendant vehicle At trial the State asked him if the defendant made any statements concerning the shotgun Sergeant Griffin replied that the defendant 5 said the shotgun wasn his it belonged to his grandfather and was used for t hunting Outside the presence of the jury the defense moved for a mistrial arguing it had never been informed of the statement referenced by Sergeant Griffin and the statement was inculpatory because it established the defendant knowledge of the s weapon The State indicated it had provided openfile discovery The defense claimed it had not seen the statement in the police reports It stated the statement was in a sense a confession to the crime and had it known of the confession it could have moved to suppress the confession The State argued the challenged statement was actually exculpatory because in the statement the defendant denied ownership of the weapon The court overruled the objection On cross examination Sergeant Griffin indicated although the shotgun had a serial number he never determined who had originally purchased the gun He also did not have the shotgun examined for fingerprints or DNA He indicated that Deputy Dykes report stated the shotgun was found in the vehicle on an s inventory search of the vehicle and did not state that the gun was in plain view Sergeant Griffin also stated the defendant told him that he oiled the gun with Crisco or his grandfather oiled the gun with Crisco Sergeant Griffin stated he never contacted the defendant grandfather because the defendant and not his s grandfather was in possession of the shotgun The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial The failure of the State to advise the defense of the defendant oral s statement did not make it impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial and did n not cause him such substantial prejudice that he was deprived of any reasonable expectation of a fair trial The defendant a convicted burglar was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm because a shotgun with pistol grips was on the passenger seat of his car after he and the vehicle were stopped following his flight from his commission of attempted theft convicted of weapon It is unlawful for any person who has been simple burglary to possess a firearm or carry a concealed La R 14 S 95 A 1 Whether the proof is sufficient to establish possession under La R 14 turns on the facts of each case Further guilty S 95 1 knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction and proved by direct or circumstantial evidence State v Johnson 20031228 p 5 La 4 04 14 870 So 995 998 2d The State theory of the case was that the defendant was in constructive s possession of the shotgun Constructive possession of a firearm occurs when the firearm is subject to the offender dominion and control Louisiana cases hold that s a defendant dominion and control over a weapon constitutes constructive s possession even if it is only temporary and even if the control is shared However mere presence of a defendant in the area of the contraband or other evidence seized alone does not prove that he exercised dominion and control over the evidence and therefore had it in his constructive possession Johnson 870 So at 998 99 The 2d s defendant claims that the shotgun belonged to his grandfather and that they used it for hunting did not defeat his constructive possession of the weapon at the time of the vehicle stop Further the defense learned of the defendant oral statement prior s 7 to cross examination of Sergeant Griffin and presented the defendant theory that s the shotgun wasn his to the jury t This assignment of error is without merit REVIEW FOR ERROR Initially we note that our review for error is pursuant to La C art 920 P Cr which provides that the only matters to be considered on appeal are errors designated in the assignments of error and error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence La C art 920 P Cr 2 The trial court failed to impose the mandatory fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars See La R 14 S 95 B 1 Although the failure to impose the fine is error under La C art 920 it P Cr 2 certainly is not inherently prejudicial to the defendant Because the trial court s failure to impose the fine was not raised by the State in either the trial court or on appeal we are not required to take any action As such we decline to correct the illegally lenient sentence See State v Price 2005 2514 pp 18 22 La App 1 st Cir 12 952 So 112 123 25 en banc writ denied 2007 0130 La 06 28 2d 08 22 2 976 So 1277 2d For the foregoing reasons the defendant conviction and sentence are s affirmed CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED I STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 0791 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS h CHRISTOPHER SCIENEAUX 4cCLENDON J concurs and assigns reasons Although I have serious concerns about the state failure to provide s notice of defendant oral statement in violation of LSAC art 716 I agree s P Cr with the result reached by the majority The state had overwhelming evidence to support its theory of constructive possession as the shotgun was located in plain view on the front passenger seat of defendant vehicle s Further although the trial court failed to impose the legislatively mandated fine given the lack of objection by the state and in the interest of judicial economy I concur with the majority decision s
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.
