140 So. 3d 153
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- On Nov. 14, 2009 Joey Bullock was shot in a white minivan in the Tallow Tree neighborhood; he told police he was shot by a Black male while attempting to buy crack; he died Nov. 19, 2009.
- Defendant Jaron Bibbins was arrested Nov. 21, 2009 after a high‑speed chase when a truck he fled from contained a 9 mm pistol; ballistics matched that pistol to the projectile recovered from Bullock.
- Co‑defendant Jenkins implicated Bibbins, placed Bibbins at the driver’s side of the van, and identified the 9 mm; other witnesses placed Bibbins at the scene; cell‑tower and phone records corroborated Bibbins’ presence in Tallow Tree that night.
- Prior to trial Bibbins moved to exclude the victim’s out‑of‑court description of his shooter (claimed dying declaration/hearsay); the trial court denied the motion but the State did not seek to admit it as a dying declaration at trial.
- After conviction for manslaughter, Bibbins moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct (juror Kirts said jurors attempted to research the case on TV/internet); the court held hearings, limited inquiry to extraneous information, and denied the new‑trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bibbins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim’s out‑of‑court description (hearsay) | Testimony was admissible to explain the course of the police investigation (police‑explanation exception); alternatively harmless if error | Statement not a dying declaration and inadmissible hearsay; its admission was prejudicial | Court: Not a dying declaration (no foundation); but admissible under police‑explanation exception or, if error, harmless given overwhelming independent evidence — admission affirmed |
| Juror misconduct/new trial (extraneous information) | Any alleged attempts to research the case on TV/internet were non‑substantive and denied by other jurors; trial court properly limited inquiry | Juror Kirts’ questionnaire alleged jurors sought outside information and pre‑deliberation discussions; this warranted a new trial or remand for more juror testimony | Court: Article 606(B) limits inquiry; trial court properly limited questioning to extraneous information; Kirts’ claims were uncorroborated and rebutted by other jurors and bailiff — denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Verrett, 419 So.2d 455 (La. 1982) (dying‑declaration requires foundation showing declarant believed death imminent)
- State v. Broadway, 753 So.2d 801 (La. 1999) (limits on police‑explanation exception to hearsay; cannot use officer testimony to inject substantive out‑of‑court assertions identifying defendant)
- State v. Antoine, 841 So.2d 874 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (discusses officer testimony to explain investigative steps and sequence of events)
- State v. Ditcharo, 739 So.2d 957 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (inadmissible hearsay subject to harmless‑error analysis; factors to evaluate prejudice)
- State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992) (police‑explanation exception must be narrowly applied; relevance/hearsay intertwined)