State of Louisiana v. Leslie C. Thompson, 2015-K-0886

Background

Leslie C. Thompson, mayor of Jonesboro (2007–2013), was charged with three counts of malfeasance in office arising from alleged failures to maintain/publicize municipal records (Count I) and improper payments for retirement (Count II) and health insurance (Count III) for allegedly ineligible or former employees.
Audits produced five consecutive disclaimer opinions (FY 2008–2012); Legislative Auditor and CPA witnesses testified to disorganized/incomplete records and numerous missing supporting documents.
The State filed an Article 404(B) notice seeking to admit 11 “other bad acts”; the district court admitted them after a hearing; the court of appeal later held some were inadmissible but deemed errors harmless.
During trial the prosecutor made an on-the-record reference to “white people,” prompting Thompson’s motions for a mandatory mistrial under La. C.Cr.P. art. 770; the trial court denied the motions.
A jury convicted Thompson on all three counts; the court of appeal affirmed convictions but vacated sentences; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to address sufficiency of the evidence, 404(B) rulings, and the mistrial issue.
The Louisiana Supreme Court: (1) found the evidence sufficient only as to Count I, (2) held Counts II and III insufficient as a matter of law, (3) held the prosecutor’s race reference required a mandatory mistrial (article 770) and that harmless-error review is inapplicable to such racial appeals, and (4) vacated convictions and sentences and remanded for a new trial on Count I.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thompson)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Count I (failure to furnish/maintain records)	Audits, disclaimers, auditor testimony and other-acts evidence show Thompson had statutory duty and intentionally failed to ensure records and audits — supports malfeasance conviction	Lack of proof of specific intent; clerk handles records; Thompson took steps (software, hires, cooperation with auditors) showing no intentional malfeasance	Evidence sufficient for Count I (jury could infer intentional failure from prolonged disclaimers, notice, and conduct)
Sufficiency of evidence for Count II (MERS retirement payments)	Payroll analyses and audit matching show $13,720.75 paid for ineligible employees; Thompson signed checks and continued payments after notice	MERS eligibility governed by statute, not town handbook; state’s spreadsheets were inadequate and MERS witnesses said data insufficient; no proof Thompson knew ineligible status during charged period	Insufficient: no rational factfinder could find ineligibility or Thompson’s knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction reversed on Count II
Sufficiency of evidence for Count III (payment of health premiums for former employees)	Auditors showed $38,072.06 was paid for former employees; Thompson signed checks and failed to get employees removed from coverage	No statute or ordinance imposed a specific duty to personally ensure cancellations; evidence showed repeated (though imperfect) attempts to cancel and no fraudulent misrepresentations by Thompson or staff	Insufficient: state failed to prove an affirmative statutory duty or fraudulent intent; conviction reversed on Count III
Prosecutor’s race reference and motion for mandatory mistrial (La. C.Cr.P. art. 770)	State argued race was already implicit from defense voir dire/opening and prosecution was entitled to rebut; error harmless in context of overall evidence	Reference to “white people” was neither material nor relevant, invoked racial prejudice; mandatory mistrial required; harmless-error review inapplicable	Held mandatory mistrial should have been granted; appeals to racial prejudice are presumptively prejudicial, not subject to harmless-error review; conviction for Count I vacated and new trial ordered on Count I

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 (insufficiency on review entitles defendant to acquittal/double jeopardy bar)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error framework)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (limits of harmless-error review for constitutional errors)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (structural-error analysis and rationales)
Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (racial discrimination in jury process as structural harm)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (peremptory strike discrimination framework cited in racial context)
State v. Petitto, 59 So.3d 1245 (La. 2011) (malfeasance requires an intentional breach of a statutory duty)
State v. Davis, 634 So.2d 1168 (La. 1994) (malfeasance requires proof of an affirmative statutory duty)
State v. Johnson, 664 So.2d 94 (La. 1995) (harmless-error review for improperly admitted other-crimes evidence; limited to that context)