State of Louisiana VS Kerry Louis Doucette
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 1021 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS KERRY LOUIS DOUCETTE Judgment rendered DEC 2 2 2010 On Appeal from the 22 Judicial District Court Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana No 455734 1 The Honorable Reginald T Badeaux III Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Counsel for the Appellee District Attorney Covington Louisiana State of Louisiana Kathryn W Landry Attorney for the State Baton Rouge Louisiana Mary E Roper Baton Rouge Louisiana Counsel for Appellant Kerry Louis Doucette BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND KLINE JJ 1 Judge William F Kline Jr retired is serving as judge pro tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court KLINE J The defendant Kerry Louis Doucette was charged by bill of information with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon count one a violation of La S 95 R 14 and possession of marijuana second offense count two a violation 1 of La R 40 He pled not guilty to both counts Following a trial by S 966 2 E jury the defendant was convicted as charged The trial court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment at hard labor for ten years without the benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence on count one The defendant now appeals urging the following assignments of error 1 The trial court erred when it allowed the jury to examine the minutes of the defendant first marijuana conviction in their s deliberations as to whether he was guilty of second offense possession of marijuana 2 The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial when the District Attorney brought out facts about the rifle in s defendant possession having been reported as stolen in a burglary since the defendant had not been charged in connection with the burglary or with being in possession of stolen property and the facts ofJ how the defendant came into possession of the firearm were not relevant to a determination of whether he was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm For the following reasons we affirm the conviction and sentence on count one and dismiss the appeal as to count two We remand for imposition of sentence on count two FACTS On August 12 2008 at approximately 12 a Deputy John Evans of 49 m the St Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office was traveling southbound on Military Road in Slidell Louisiana when he observed a vehicle traveling northbound at a very slow rate of speed with sparks of fire coming from one of the tires Deputy Evans engaged the emergency lights and siren on his marked police vehicle and effectuated a traffic stop The vehicle immediately pulled over 2 At Deputy Evans direction the driver later identified as the defendant s exited the vehicle Deputy Evans advised the defendant of the reason for the stop and asked what was wrong with his vehicle The defendant responded that he was trying to make it home Deputy Evans asked the defendant to produce his driver s license vehicle registration and insurance Deputy Evans also asked if the defendant had any outstanding warrants The defendant advised that he possibly had an outstanding warrant Upon confirming that an active warrant for the s defendant arrest existed Deputy Evans read the defendant his Miranda rights and placed him under arrest During a safety pat down of the defendant person s Deputy Evans observed a small plastic bag containing what appeared to be marijuana protruding from the opened zipper of the defendant pants s Deputy Evans seized the marijuana and asked if there were any other drugs or weapons on the defendant person or inside the vehicle s The defendant admitted that there was a gun in the trunk of the vehicle Deputy Evans recovered a Marlin lever action rifle with a scope on it from the trunk Deputy Evans asked the defendant why he possessed the rifle and the defendant stated that he had borrowed it from a friend He explained that his grandmother had recently died and he wanted to go blow off some steam DENIAL OF MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL In his second assignment of error the defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial after the state in its opening statement mentioned information regarding the fact that the rifle found in the defendant s possession had been reported stolen in a burglary The defendant argues that since he had not been charged in connection with the burglary or with being in possession of stolen property the facts regarding the burglary were irrelevant and highly prejudicial At the trial the parties stipulated that the green leafy material found inside the plastic bad was marijuana 3 During the opening statement after explaining the events leading up to the s defendant arrest the prosecutor stated You are also going to hear testimony from Detective Steve Detective Lucian worked in the Property Crimes area and had a recent couple of burglaries in the area And Detective Evans and a couple of road deputies were aware of it One of the weapons was a large rifle with a scope on it and it was a Marlin So they started talking You are going to find out because of that Deputy Lucian Evans turned over the gun he retrieved to Detective Lucian It was still all in the Sheriffs Office for further investigation on it You are going to hear from Detective Lucian who took over at that point that he took the gun the information on it and the gun itself did match the information He contacted what is the reporting person that had been the victim of a burglary and showed him the gun went over the gun with him and you are going to find out the gun was identified to have been his and to have been reported stolen You are going to find out that based on that confirmation Detective Lucian didn make any assumptions he decided he needed to go talk t to Mr Doucette You are going to find out at that time Mr Doucette was still in custody They went to the jail read him his rights Told what he was now looking at that the gun was stolen And you are going to hear he did an audio statement with Mr Doucette who did waive his rights and gave him information about the nature of the gun where he had gotten it as much as he was willing to tell the officers You are going to find out he told the officers that the gun was given to him by a friend He was able to give a street name And that the officers did their own investigation and find out a residence They went in the residence and you are going to find out they did also recover some other stolen property that didn have anything to do t about this case Now you are going to find out that Mr Doucette s statement to them was that he knew it wasn his friend He didn ask t t any questions but he did not believe it to be stolen from his statement And officers went on about the investigation and find the gun was returned to the owner for a brief period of time We also got it back so you could have it here today and see it for trial At the conclusion of the prosecutor opening statement defense counsel s moved for a mistrial He argued that the prosecutor references to the burglary s and stolen goods criminal offenses for which the defendant was not being prosecuted were irrelevant The trial court denied the mistrial motion and advised that the jury would be admonished as to the limited use of other crimes evidence in the jury instructions KJ Except under certain statutory or jurisprudential exceptions evidence of other crimes or bad acts committed by the defendant is inadmissible at trial La Code Evid art 404B State v Jackson 625 So 146 14849 La 1993 1 2d Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 770 provides in pertinent part Upon motion of a defendant a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment made within the hearing of the jury by the judge district attorney or a court official during the trial or in argument refers directly or indirectly to 2 Another crime committed alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible or An admonition to the jury to disregard the remark or comment shall not be sufficient to prevent a mistrial If the defendant however requests that only an admonition be given the court shall admonish the jury to disregard the remark or comment but shall not declare a mistrial Mistrial is a drastic remedy that should be declared only when unnecessary prejudice results to the accused State v Smith 430 So 31 44 La 1983 In 2d addition a trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether conduct is so prejudicial as to deprive an accused of a fair trial See State v Sanders 93 0001 p 21 La 11 648 So 1 128889 cert denied sub nom Sanders v 94 30 2d 272 Louisiana 517 U 1246 116 S 2504 135 L 194 1996 S Ct 2d Ed In State v Edwards 971797 p 20 La 7 750 So 893 906 cert 99 2 2d denied sub nom Edwards v Louisiana 528 U 1026 120 S 542 145 S Ct 2d Ed L 421 1999 the Louisiana Supreme Court held A comment must not arguably point to a prior crime to trigger mandatory mistrial pursuant to Article 770 the remark must 2 unmistakably point to evidence of another crime State v Babin 336 So 780 La 1976 where reference to a mug shot was not 2d unmistakable reference to a crime committed by defendant State v Harris 258 La 720 247 So 847 1971 where no crime was 2d evidenced by a police officer reference to obtaining defendant s s photograph from the Bureau of Investigation In addition the imputation must unambiguously point to defendant State v 5 Edwards 406 So 1331 1349 La 1981 cert denied sub nom 2d Edwards v La 456 U 945 102 S 2011 72 L 467 S Ct 2d Ed 1982 The defendant has the burden of proving that a mistrial is warranted In the instant case the comments as to the stolen nature of the rifle did not divulge any facts that would constitute evidence that the defendant had actually committed another crime The comments were made while relating the sequence of events and were relevant to establish the chain of custody for the evidence in the case Furthermore while the comments may have pointed to evidence of other crimes they did not unambiguously point to the defendant as having been involved in those crimes Moreover even if we conclude that the prosecutor comments regarding the s rifle having been reported stolen in a burglary constituted the introduction of impermissible other crimes evidence the analysis would not end with such a finding It is well settled that the erroneous admission of other crimes evidence is subject to harmless error review See State v Johnson 94 1379 p 15 La 95 27 11 664 So 94 101 Here wherein the defendant a convicted felon was 2d found in constructive possession of the rifle a fact he did not dispute we find that the guilty verdict was surely unattributable to any evidence of a burglary or S possession of stolen goods See Sullivan v Louisiana 508 U 275 279 113 Ct S 2078 2081 124 L 182 1993 Therefore even if we were to conclude 2d Ed that there was error by the trial court in allowing the jury to hear information regarding other crimes any such error was clearly harmless and does not necessitate reversal of the defendant conviction See La Code Crim P art 921 s Insofar as the defendant asserts the trial court should have at the least provided a limiting instruction to the jury we note the record in this case reveals that the trial court did in fact admonish the jury on the limited use of the evidence at issue During the testimony of Detective Steven Lucia the detective responsible G7 for investigating the burglary during which the rifle was stolen counsel for the defendant objected to any references to the burglary and stolen property The court overruled the objection and asked if counsel would like to have the jury admonished at that time When counsel responded affirmatively the court instructed the jury All right I am going to admonish the jurors not to attach too much importance to any mention of other crimes You know they re inextricably intertwined here and the State is trying to show their chain of custody of the evidence So you only consider it for that limited purpose Although it was not included in the final instructions to the jury the limiting instruction was given when the defense requested it during the testimony of the witness Considering the above we find no error or abuse of discretion in the trial s court denial of the defendant motion for a mistrial s As previously noted mistrial is a drastic remedy that should be granted only when the defendant suffers such substantial prejudice that he has been deprived of any reasonable expectation of a fair trial This assignment of error lacks merit REVIEW FOR ERROR Initially we note that our review for error is pursuant to La Code Crim P art 920 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 Code Crim P art 920 During our review in this case several 2 sentencing errors were discovered First the trial court failed to impose the mandatory fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars on count one See La R S B 1 95 14 Although the failure to impose the fine is error under La Code Crim 7 P art 920 it certainly is not inherently prejudicial to the defendant 2 Because the trial court failure to impose the fine was not raised by the State in either the s 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 1st Cir 12 952 So 112 123 25 en banc writ denied 06 28 2d 20070130 La 2 976 So 1277 08 22 2d We also discovered a sentencing error that requires us to remand this matter for further proceedings before we can consider the defendant appeal as to count s two Although the February 11 2010 minute entry reflects that the trial court imposed a sentence on the possession of marijuana second offense conviction the sentencing transcript for that date indicates otherwise At the time of sentencing the trial court imposed the sentence only on the firearm conviction The transcript is devoid of any reference to a sentence for the possession of marijuana conviction It is well settled that in the event of a discrepancy between the minutes and the transcript the transcript prevails See State v Lynch 441 So 732 734 La 2d 1983 Furthermore it is worth noting that the minute entry that reflects a sentence for the possession of marijuana conviction states that the sentence was imposed following a guilty plea However the record before us clearly indicates that the defendant was tried by a jury and convicted on that offense The minute entry is obviously in error Pursuant to Louisiana Constitution article V A 10 as amended this court has appellate jurisdiction of criminal matters It is well settled that a defendant can appeal from a final judgment of conviction only where sentence has been imposed La Code Crim P art 912 State v Chapman 471 So 716 La 1985 1 C 2d per curiam In the absence of a valid sentence on the possession of marijuana second offense conviction the defendant appeal of that conviction is not properly s before this court As such we pretermit consideration of the defendant first s 8 assignment of error as it relates to that conviction We remand the matter to the trial court for sentencing on count two After sentencing the defendant may perfect a new appeal as to that conviction DECREE For the foregoing reasons we affirm the defendant conviction and s sentence on count one We dismiss the appeal as to count two and remand for imposition of sentence on that count CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ON COUNT ONE AFFIRMED APPEAL DISMISSED ON COUNT TWO REMANDED FOR IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE ON COUNT TWO 0
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.
