267 So. 3d 209
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Shaun Barnett was indicted for and convicted of first-degree murders of Dawn Scott and Raynell Kimbrough and of being a felon in possession of a firearm; he received concurrent life sentences for the murders and ten years for the weapons charge.
- At the crime scene a child (D.S.) and neighbors identified a man with dreadlocks called "Shaun," surveillance and license-plate/tower data placed Barnett's vehicle in the area, and a camouflage jacket with Kimbrough's blood and matching DNA was recovered.
- The State introduced other-act evidence: jailhouse testimony from a cellmate (Jeremy Smith) that Barnett confessed to earlier 2007 murders and to the instant killings; the trial court admitted that evidence after the Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the district court ruling allowing it.
- Barnett sought to introduce a 2007 polygraph result and requested a competency evaluation; the trial court excluded polygraph evidence (motion in limine) and declined to order a competency exam after finding no reasonable grounds.
- During voir dire Barnett initially attempted to represent himself (Faretta), but the record shows he vacillated and counsel ultimately conducted the defense; the court found he waived the right to self-representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Barnett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-act evidence under La. C.E. art. 404(B) (jailhouse confession re: 2007 murders) | Evidence corroborated the jailhouse informant and was admissible for non-propensity purposes (corroboration, identity, motive) | Admission was highly prejudicial, used to show propensity, and not proven by preponderance; unfairly bolstered Smith's testimony | Court affirmed admission (Louisiana Supreme Court had reinstated trial-court ruling); even if error, any error was harmless given overwhelming other evidence of guilt |
| Exclusion of polygraph evidence (Motion in Limine) | Polygraph is unreliable and inadmissible under Louisiana precedent; exclusion proper | Polygraph would rebut the jailhouse informant and explain why Barnett wasn’t charged in 2007 | Court excluded polygraph results; held polygraph inadmissible and exclusion not error |
| Request for competency evaluation (sanity commission) | N/A (State opposed; no evidence of incompetence) | Defense requested evaluation based on history of mental illness, past commitments, and Barnett’s courtroom behavior | Court found no reasonable grounds to doubt competency after review and did not order exam; appellate court found no abuse of discretion |
| Faretta/self-representation waiver | N/A (State noted defendant vacillated) | Barnett contends he unequivocally invoked right to self-representation and counsel later usurped that right | Court found initial request was equivocal and that Barnett waived self-representation by permitting appointed counsel to conduct trial; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La. 1973) (Prieur notice requirements for other-crimes evidence)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1988) (proof standard for admission of extrinsic acts evidence)
- State v. Chatman, 227 So.3d 802 (La. 2017) (addressing admissibility standard for other acts)
- State v. Robertson, 712 So.2d 8 (La. 1998) (polygraph evidence inadmissible; reliability concerns)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation and required waiver inquiry)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (defendant's right to present a defense)