State of Louisiana v. Quincy McKinnies, Jr.
2014 La. LEXIS 2253
La.2014Background
- Defendant Quincey (Quincy) McKinnies was convicted by jury of aggravated assault on a police officer with a firearm after Officer Ryan Mekdessie testified McKinnies pointed a handgun during a foot chase; McKinnies denied the allegation and no weapon was recovered.
- McKinnies filed a timely motion for new trial asserting newly discovered evidence: alleged misconduct/investigations involving Officer Mekdessie that would impeach his credibility; the motion included an affidavit by defense counsel but produced no proof or witness testimony at the contradictory hearing.
- The trial court granted a new trial, stating the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence and that the ends of justice required a new trial; the court’s per curiam said the judge had a reasonable doubt after observing trial testimony and demeanor.
- The state sought supervisory review; the court of appeal affirmed the grant (2–1), treating the ruling as within the trial court’s discretion under La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(B)(1) and (5) and declined to address the art. 851(B)(3) (newly discovered evidence) merits.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed and reversed: it held McKinnies failed to meet statutory requirements for newly discovered evidence, the trial court improperly weighed trial evidence as a juror, and the trial court lacked authority to grant a new trial on a ground not raised or supported by proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly granted new trial based on newly discovered evidence (La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(B)(3)) | State: defendant failed to prove newly discovered evidence; allegations alone insufficient | McKinnies: alleged officer misconduct would have impeached sole material witness and likely changed verdict | Held: No — defendant did not satisfy statutory elements (diligence, specificity, materiality); motion unsupported by proof, so grant under (B)(3) improper |
| Whether trial court may grant a new trial on a ground not raised by defendant | State: court may not supply reasons; defendant bears burden and must raise grounds | McKinnies: trial court may exercise discretion under art. 851(B)(5) and court may permit supplementation | Held: Trial court cannot grant a new trial sua sponte on an unraised ground without permitting supplementation and giving state fair notice; court erred in doing so |
| Proper role/standard of review for trial court when motion is based on newly discovered evidence vs. other grounds | State: trial judge must assess whether evidence is fit for new jury (not weigh as juror) and appellate review is limited to errors of law | McKinnies: judge may consider demeanor/evidence as juror under other grounds | Held: For (B)(3) judge must not act as thirteenth juror; here judge improperly weighed trial evidence. Appellate review limited to legal error |
| Whether appellate court applied correct standard in affirming trial court | State: appellate court should have evaluated grant under (B)(3) and legal standards for newly discovered evidence | McKinnies: appellate court permissibly affirmed under (B)(1)/(5) discretionary review | Held: Appellate court erred by reviewing the grant on grounds other than those actually raised and by failing to address legal error in trial court’s handling of (B)(3) motion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Talbot, 408 So.2d 861 (La. 1980) (trial judge’s duty on newly discovered evidence is to decide whether evidence is fit for a new jury, not to weigh credibility as a juror)
- State v. Guillory, 45 So.3d 612 (La. 2010) (trial court’s grant of new trial must articulate reasons and is subject to limits when discretion appears arbitrary)
- State v. Watts, 835 So.2d 441 (La. 2000) (elements and standards for new trial based on newly discovered evidence summarized)
- State v. Saba, 14 So.2d 751 (La. 1943) (motion for new trial must show particulars of discovery and diligence; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- State v. Macon, 957 So.2d 1280 (La. 2007) (trial court lacks authority to convert motions or grant relief without proper basis; rulings without authority are ultra vires)