State Of Louisiana VS Staci Alvarado
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2013 KA 0201 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS STACI ALVARADO DATE OFJUDGMENT SEP 3 0 2013 r T M ON APPEAL FROM TFIE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TMBER NI p c112327 DIVISION B PARISH OF WEST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE J ROBIN FREE JUDGE I Richard J Port Ward D Jr A Allen Louisiana Counsel far Appellee State of Louisiana Elizabeth A Engolio A D Plaquemine Louisiana Frederick Kroenke Counsel for Defendant Appellant Baton Staci Alvarado Rouge Louisiana BEFORE KiJIIN IIGGINBOT AND TI JJ HAM RIOT Disposition CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED KUHN J The defendant Staci Alvarado was charged by grand jury indictment with manslaughter a violation of La R 1431 She pled not guilty and following a S jury trial was found guilty as charged The trial court sentenced the defendant to thirty years imprisonment at hard labor The defendant now appeals designating two assignments of error We affirm the conviction and sentence FACTS The defendant and her husband Luis Alvarado the victim together with their four children and the defendant stepfather Ronald Aultman lived in a s mobile home on Court Street in Port Allen On the evening of May 5 2011 the defendant and Luis began arguing Their quarrel soon turned physical and the defendant and Luis began striking each other According to the defendant and Aultman this violent behavior typified their tumultuous relationship At some point during the brawl Aultman heard Luis Aultman say call the police testified at trial that he took the children across the street so that he could tell a neighbor to call the police because the defendant was stabbing Luis The neighbor called 911 Officer Dan Cipriano with the Port Allen City Police Department was near the defendant residence when he was radioed that a stabbing was in s progress Within a minute Officer Cipriano arrived at the scene and went into the mobile home As he walked through to clear the area the defendant opened the back bedroom door The officer ordered the defendant to the ground and handcuffed her She had blood on her hands Luis was on the bed with a stab wound to the chest He died a short time later A nine inch serrated filet knife was found on the edge of the bed approximately six inches of the blade had blood on it That same night the defendant was taken to the police station for questioning Detective Jeremy Thompson with the Port Allen Ciry Police 2 Department interviewed the defendant Six days later the defendant provided a second statement to Detective Thompson In her first statement the defendant indicated she and Luis had been engaged in a physical altercation but did not remember stabbing him with a knife In her second statement the defendant claimed to have remembered that both she and Luis had a knife and that after she stabbed him she dropped the knife and ran for help Both taped statements were played for the jury The defendant did not testify at trial ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 1 In her first assignment of error the defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of irrelevant and overly prejudicial acts by her to be admitted Specifically the defendant asserts that the first thirteen minutes of her initial video recorded interview with the police while she was alone in the waiting room in an agitated state should have been redacted and not shown to the jury because it was irrelevant and even if relevant its prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value In response the State contends that the defendant behavior in the s interoiew room goes to the core of her self argument in that it defense demonstrated her aggressive behavior During the thirteen minutes at issue the defendant is alone in the interview room and being recorded without her knowledge Clearly upset she screams and curses about being chained to her chair and uses the I word P She continues ranting for several minutes about police being lazy and inept at their jobs and makes threats toward the police A few police officers come to the door of the interview room at different times to talk to the defendant or to try to calm her down to no avail The trial court ultimately allowed the entire recording to be shown to the jury I Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable 3 or less probable than it would be without the evidence La C art 401 E All relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by positive law while evidence that is not relevant is not admissible La C art 402 Further E although relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantiaily outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice confusion of the issues misleading the jury or by considerations of undue delay or waste of time La C art 403 E Ultimately questions of relevancy and admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court Such determinations regarding relevancy and admissibility should not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion See State u Friday 10 La App lst Cir 6 73 So 913 925 writ denied I1 2309 11 17 3d 1456 La 485 So3d 1258 12 20 Evidence of a person scharacter generally is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity with his or her character on a particular occasion La E C art 404 State v Kelly OS La App lst Cir 5935 So 205 A 1913 06 2d 208 Further La C art 404 does not allow other acts into evidence to E 1 B show bad character although such acts may be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive opportunity intent preparation plan knowledge identity absence of mistake or accident The acts at issue herein are the defendant s outbursts as well as her general behavior while she waited to be interviewed by a detective While the trial court concluded that the defendant tumultuous s behavior was relevant on the basis that it went to whether or not she was the aggressor the court did not specify in terms of Article 404 or any 1 B applicable law what such behaviar might prove other than that she was the aggressor While the trial court seemed conflicted over whether the evidence was overly prejudicial or not it was convinced that such evidence was relevant To the trial court the defendant behaviar in the interview room was merely an ongoing s 4 extension of the behavior exhibited by the defendant when she was at home with Luis two hours before In its ruling allowing the thirteen minutes into evidence the trial court stated b within an hour and 45 minutes of the stabbing she ut was still cutting up that may have some probative value and i makes her look t like what she is it makes her look like what she was an hour and 45 minutes after that We find the fact that the defendant was shouting agitated and aggressive or two hours after the stabbing has no relevance regarding whether she was the aggressar Although evidence of a person aggressive behaviar befare a killing s might be highly relevant regarding who the aggressor was a person mental s behavior state hours after a killing does not seem relevant for purposes of determining who the aggressor was at the time of the killing See State v Taylor 621 So 141 151 La App 2d Cir 1993 writ denied 93 La 2d 52 2054 94 11 2 634 So 371 evidence of the defendant state prior to the 2d s of mind filling was found to be relevant While the trial court ruling on the admissibility of the thirteen minutes of s video may be erroneous we find any such error to be harmless Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 92i states that a judgment or ruling shall not be reversed by an appellate court because ofany error defect irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights of the accused The test for determining whether an error is harmless is whether the verdict actually rendered in this case was surely unattributable to the error Sullivan v Louisiana 508 U 275 279 S 113 S 2078 2081 124 L 182 1993 Ct 2d Ed In this case the medical and testimonial evidence clearly established the s defendant guilt In her recorded interview two hours after the stabbing when she was asked if she was aware that she had stabbed Luis the defendant claimed she did not remember stabbing him with a knife She stated she could not remember 5 anything after she hit him with a large be1L In another recorded interview six days later the defendant stated that she and Luis first started arguing and then began fighting fist in the living room The defendant further stated that she grabbed a bell and hit Luis with it twice in the back of the head to stop him from hitting her At some point according to the defendant they were in the bedroom when Luis threw her on the bed Luis had a filet knife and put the handle to her throat He then choked her The fighting subsided and the defendant went to the kitchen She grabbed a knife to carry around for protection She described her knife as having two separate points at the tip When she went into the bedroom to get her cigarettes Luis still had the filet knife The defendant could not remember who made the first move as each stood there with a knife in hand but she remembered Luis saying Ronnie I need help after she stabbed him The defendant stated it was not her intention to stab Luis and that she thought she had only pricked him with the knife The police found Luis on the bed bleeding The filet knife was on the edge of the bed DNA test results indicated that Luis blood was on the blade and the s s defendant DNA was on the handle It was clear from this evidence that the defendant not Luis had the filet knife The knife the defendant claimed she was carrying was found on the kitchen counter but not taken into evidence because it did not appear to have been used in a stabbing The filet lrnife used to kill Luis punctured his heart According to the autopsy report it was a penetrating 12 cm sharp force injury to the right anterior tharax right middle lobe lung pericardium aortic and pulmonary roots with right hemopneumothorax and hemopericardium In giving her side of the story to the police on two separate occasions the defendant never once suggested that she stabbed Luis because he was coming at her or that she thought he would kill her 6 Therefore the evidence established both that Luis was not armed when he was stabbed by the defendant in the bedroom and that at the moment the defendant stabbed Luis she was the aggressor and not acting in self The State defense s evidence clearly established the defendant guilt As such the guilty verdict s rendered was surely not attributable to the evidence of the first thirteen minutes of the defendant initial interview s Any error in allowing such evidence to be presented to the jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt See La C art P Cr 921 Sullivan 508 U at 279 113 S at 2081 S Ct This assignment of error is without merit ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 2 In her second assignment of error the defendant argues the trial court erred in allowing into evidence Detective Thompson stestimony wherein he speculated about her state mind of During the cross of Detective Thompson defense counsel examination introduced into evidence the second recorded interview of the defendant which was played for the jury On redirect examination the prosecutor asked Seven sic days after she came with this scheme about what took place that night right Detective Thompson renlied Yes it seemed it was some kind of self serving defense that she had come up with Defense counsel objected on the grounds of speculation The trial court overruled the objection stating that the detective could give his opinion based on what he perceived at the time he was looking at these things In brief the defendant suggests that Detective Thompson statement should s have been excluded because the detective offered expert opinion that went to the ultimate issue of the defendant s defense theory of self According to the defendant this testimony was tantamount to an opinion that t1 defendant was e guilty of manslaughter This assertion is baseless 7 Louisiana Code of Evidence Articie 704 states Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not to be excluded solely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact However in a criminal case an expert wimess shall not express an opinion as to the guilt or innocence ofthe accused That portion of Article 704 regarding expert testimony does not apply in this case because Detective Thompson was neither called nor qualified as an expert witness He testified as a non witness See State v Hubbard 97 La expert 916 App Sth Cir 1708 So 1099 1106 writ denied 98 La 8 98 27 2d 0643 98 28 723 So 415 The limitations on the testimony of non witnesses are found 2d expert in La C art 701 which states E If the witness is not testifying as an expert his testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are 1 Rationally based on the perception of the witness and 2 Helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact iri issue Generally a lay witness can only testify to the facts within his knowledge and not to impressions ar opinions however a witness is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from his personal observations Where the subject of the testimony is such that any person of emay make a natural inference from erience observed facts a lay witness may testify as to such inferences provided he also states the observed facts Hubbard 708 So at 1106 2d Detective Thompson was testifying only as a non witness and as expert such he was allowed to make n inference regarding the defendant veracity from s his own observations Moreover while we do not find that Detective Thompson s comment embraced the ultimate issue of guilt based on the plain language of La E C art 704 general opinion testimony that is otherwise admissible is not to be excluded solely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the 8 fact of trier The detective testimony rationally based on his perceptions and s observations was admissible See State v Higgins 03 La 4 898 1980 OS 1 2d So 1219 1234 cert denied 546 U 883 126 S 182 163 L 187 S Ct 2d Ed 2005 This assignment of error is without merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED I 9
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.
