State v. Altenberger
139 So. 3d 510
La.2014Background
- Defendant Vernon Altenberger charged with domestic abuse battery-strangulation (La. Rev. Stat. § 14:35.3(B)(3)) for March 28, 2010 incident.
- State sought to introduce Prieur evidence of prior domestic violence and protective-order violations (including July 2011 communications and Facebook posts).
- Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence of Other Crimes filed August 7, 2012; second Prieur motion filed July 3, 2013.
- Trial court denied both motions citing remoteness in time and lack of relevancy; limited consideration of text messages and Facebook posts.
- State sought appellate review; Third Circuit denied; Louisiana Supreme Court granted writ to clarify Prieur admissibility and remand for a Prieur hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remoteness alone bars Prieur evidence. | Altenberger argues remoteness defeats relevance and outweighs prejudice. | Altenberger contends remoteness supports exclusion of prior acts. | Remoteness alone not controlling; guided remand for Prieur hearing. |
| Whether prior acts have independent relevance to knowledge/identity/absence of mistake. | Altenberger asserts independent relevance to motive/knowledge/identity and to defenses. | Altenberger argues no independent relevancy beyond character. | Evidence may have independent relevance; requires Prieur hearing to assess. |
| Whether post-incident conduct (texts, calls, Facebook posts) can be part of a continuing pattern. | Altenberger contends it forms an integrated narrative of domestic violence. | Altenberger claims it is not connected to the charged act. | May be admissible if probative of a continuing pattern and independent relevance. |
| Whether the district court should conduct a full Prieur inquiry rather than pretrial exclusion. | Altenberger supports an evidentiary Prieur hearing to evaluate admissibility. | Altenberger argues no need for full inquiry given remoteness. | Remand for a full Prieur hearing required. |
| What is the proper procedure for a Prieur hearing guidance in this context. | State seeks guidance on admissibility framework and substantial relevance. | Defense cautions against advisory opinions on admissibility rules not yet litigated. | Proceed with Prieur hearing; court provides guidance on balancing test. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Garcia, 108 So.3d 1 (La. 2012) (outlines 404(B) admissibility and balancing test for other-crimes evidence)
- State v. Lee, 976 So.2d 109 (La. 2008) (relevance of prior acts to prove material issues; gatekeeping role)
- State v. Jackson, 625 So.2d 146 (La. 1993) (remoteness is a factor, not sole determinant of admissibility)
- State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La. 1973) (establishes Prieur hearing framework for other-crimes evidence)
- State v. Shirley, 10 So.3d 224 (La. 2009) (pretrial admissibility standards in Prieur context (non-trial hearing))
- State v. Kennedy, 803 So.2d 916 (La. 2001) (motive/intent/identity permitted under 404(B) with notice)