217 So. 3d 555
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- M.B., a juvenile, was arrested after V.E. and her child K.E. identified him as the person who entered their car at the Mardi Gras Museum, tried to drag V.E. out, and then reached for her purse.
- Officer Taylor located and apprehended M.B. nearby; while M.B. was handcuffed by a police car about 20 feet from V.E.’s vehicle, Officer Taylor told V.E. “we caught the subject,” and V.E. and K.E. identified M.B. at the scene.
- The State initially produced 13 NOPD body-camera videos to defense counsel during discovery; during the first adjudication hearing two additional videos tied to the incident were discovered and produced to defense counsel mid-trial. V.E. and K.E. had already been released and left the state.
- Defense moved for a mistrial asserting a Brady violation (undisclosed potentially exculpatory footage) and later attempted to withdraw that motion after the court had granted it; the juvenile court declared a mistrial and later reconvened for a second adjudication.
- At the second adjudication hearing M.B. was found delinquent of attempted carjacking and attempted purse snatching and sentenced to juvenile custody; he appealed challenging the identifications, sufficiency of the evidence, the mistrial/double-jeopardy consequences, and denial of a recusal motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of out-of-court and in-court identifications | State: identification reliable and admissible; one-on-one show-up permissible given prompt apprehension | M.B.: show-up was impermissibly suggestive (Officer Taylor’s statement) so IDs should be suppressed | Court: identification admissible; even if suggestive, reliable under totality of circumstances (Brathwaite factors) |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State: IDs and testimony establish attempted carjacking and purse snatching beyond reasonable doubt | M.B.: conviction rests on unreliable ID so evidence insufficient | Court: evidence sufficient; witness testimony credible and identifications reliable under Jackson and manifest-error review |
| Mistrial and double jeopardy | State: mistrial was proper; defense effectively consented and discovery defect (Brady) warranted mistrial | M.B.: retrial violated double jeopardy because mistrial improperly granted | Court: mistrial proper—granted on defense motion before withdrawal (La. C.Cr.P. art. 775(1)); alternatively legally justified under art. 775(3) due to Brady material; no double jeopardy |
| Motion to recuse judge | M.B.: judge’s prior adverse rulings (granting mistrial, denying release) show bias requiring recusal | State: adverse rulings alone do not establish disqualifying bias | Court: summary denial proper because allegations of adverse rulings do not state a valid ground for recusal under La. C.Cr.P. art. 671 |
Key Cases Cited
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (reliability test for suggestive identifications under totality of circumstances)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence: any rational trier of fact)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (manifest-error/clearly wrong standard for appellate review of facts)