279 So.3d 501
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Parole officer reported monitored curfew violations and visits to a high-crime area by Eric Richardson, a known prior cocaine distributor; JPSO narcotics detectives opened an investigation and used a confidential informant (CI).
- The CI conducted a controlled buy of heroin from Richardson; detectives surveilled the exchange, recovered the purchased heroin from the CI, and used that information to obtain search warrants for Richardson’s residence and vehicle.
- Officers executed the warrants, detained Richardson after he fled into his apartment, and discovered narcotics buried in disturbed dirt in the backyard (cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, Tramadol, Diazepam) plus packaging and digital scales in a shed.
- Richardson was Mirandized and later admitted ownership of the seized items; the State introduced prior drug convictions for 404(B) purposes and an expert opined the quantities indicated distribution.
- After a bench trial Richardson was convicted on five felony narcotics counts; the trial court later adjudicated him a second felony offender and imposed an enhanced sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to disclose the CI’s identity or conduct an in camera interview | State: CI identity is privileged; no exceptional circumstances because charges rest on contraband seized at search, not the controlled buy | Richardson: CI was integral because the controlled buy supplied probable cause for the warrant; court must test CI credibility | Court: Informer privilege applies; no exceptional circumstances shown; CI not crucial to the transaction that produced the charged evidence; disclosure and in camera interview denied |
| Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause where affidavit relied on an anonymous CI | State: CI was reliable and corroborated (vehicle, address, controlled buy); affiant had reasonably trustworthy information | Richardson: Affidavit lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and failed to show probable cause | Court: Under totality of circumstances (and Gates standard) magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; warrant valid |
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession of seized narcotics | State: Richardson’s admission, dominion over premises, prior convictions, paraphernalia, and quantity support constructive possession | Richardson: Insufficient proof he possessed the recovered drugs | Court: Evidence (including admissions and paraphernalia) sufficient under Jackson to prove constructive possession and support convictions |
| Whether search exceeded the warrant (search of backyard area) and suppression warranted | State: Defense waived this ground by not raising it at suppression hearing | Richardson: Search exceeded scope of warrant; suppression required | Court: Claim not raised below; waived under La. C.Cr.P. art. 841; appellate review barred |
| Appellate reviewability of misdemeanor resisting conviction tried with felonies | State: Appellate jurisdiction limited where misdemeanor penalty ≤ six months | Richardson: Challenged sufficiency of misdemeanor conviction | Court: Appellate court lacks jurisdiction over that misdemeanor (not triable by jury); issue not before this court |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957) (informer's privilege and exception for "exceptional circumstances")
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause from informant tips)
- State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992) (framework for considering sufficiency and trial errors together)
- State v. Lewis, 916 So.2d 294 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2005) (factors for establishing constructive possession)