State of Louisiana v. Calvin King, 2015-KP-1283

Background

Victim Javier Sanchez was found fatally shot Nov. 2, 2007; earlier that evening three armed men robbed the apartment of Sanchez and Maria Abreu. Abreu testified she saw Sanchez driven away in his Ford Expedition with two men beside him. The vehicle was later found burned; a latent fingerprint on duct tape matched Calvin King.
King was tried and convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and armed robbery. The defense emphasized numerous inconsistencies in Abreu’s statements and expert reconstruction testimony challenging her ability to see the vehicle as described.
King moved for a new trial under La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 851(1) (verdict contrary to law and evidence) and (2). The trial court granted the new trial, citing many inconsistencies in the sole eyewitness’s testimony and noting the case was circumstantial.
The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding the trial court erred by not making an explicit threshold finding that an "injustice" occurred and that the inconsistencies were insignificant to the charged elements.
The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review and reversed the court of appeal, reinstating the trial court’s grant of a new trial, holding Article 851(1) rulings are fact-based and generally not reviewable as questions of law; no separate, reviewable threshold finding of "injustice" is required.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court must make a separate, reviewable threshold finding that an "injustice" occurred before granting a new trial under Art. 851(1)	State: Article 851 requires showing an "injustice" and courts should require an explicit finding to permit appellate review	King: No separate legal finding is required; granting a new trial under 851(1) inherently means the judge found injustice and that factual determination is not reviewable	Held: No separate, reviewable threshold finding of injustice is required for 851(1); the trial court’s factual determination stands and is generally not subject to appellate fact‑finding review
Whether appellate court may reverse a trial court’s grant of a new trial under Art. 851(1) by reweighing witness credibility/facts	State: Appellate review appropriate to ensure the trial court did not abuse discretion and to prevent improper new-trial grants	King: Appellate reweighing of facts and credibility violates La. Const. art. V; 851(1) rulings are fact‑driven and insulated from appellate review	Held: Rulings under 851(1) are factually driven and appellate courts may not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility; review is limited to legal error only
Whether inconsistencies in sole eyewitness’s testimony can justify a new trial under the 13th‑juror function	State: The inconsistencies were insignificant and unrelated to elements; cannot justify setting aside verdict	King: Numerous inconsistencies and physical‑reconstruction evidence undermined the eyewitness, supporting the trial court acting as a thirteenth juror to grant new trial	Held: Trial court permissibly exercised its thirteenth‑juror role; credibility and factual inconsistencies are for the trial court to adjudge under 851(1)
Whether jurisprudence should be changed to make 851(1) rulings reviewable as questions of law	State: Courts should allow review to curb potential abuse and provide uniformity	King: Changing doctrine would require appellate factfinding in criminal cases and conflict with constitutional limits; should be legislative change if desired	Held: Court declines to expand appellate review; change would risk violating constitutional prohibition on appellate factfinding

Key Cases Cited

State v. Guillory, 45 So.3d 612 (La. 2010) (distinguishes reviewability of Article 851(1) factual determinations from legal grounds for new trial)
State v. McKinnies, 171 So.3d 861 (La. 2014) (discusses trial judge’s thirteenth‑juror role in evaluating verdicts under Article 851)
State v. Raines, 788 So.2d 635 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2001) (excerpted by court of appeal regarding ‘‘injustice’’ language but not controlling on 851(1) separate‑finding issue)
State v. Cox, 48 So.3d 275 (La. 2010) (new trial under Article 851(5) reversed for legal error; distinguishes reviewable legal grounds from 851(1))
State v. Gilmore, 127 So.3d 907 (La. 2013) (reversing new trial under Article 851(2) where stated reasons did not demonstrate prejudice as a matter of law)
State v. Hampton, 750 So.2d 867 (La. 1999) (recognizes trial judge’s power as thirteenth juror to set aside jury verdict)
State v. Snyder, 750 So.2d 832 (La. 1999) (discusses limits and scope of trial court’s authority to grant new trials)