State v. Carter
171 So. 3d 1265
| La. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Ervin Carter was charged with eight counts of armed robbery (La. R.S. 14:64; 14:64.3) for multiple robberies of Advance Auto Parts and Radio Shack stores in Jefferson Parish (July 2012–June 2013); an additional unadjudicated Radio Shack robbery in Mobile, AL (May 2013) was investigated.
- Victim eyewitness identifications, store surveillance videos, and co-defendant Woodrow Martin’s testimony linked Carter to multiple robberies; Martin admitted participation and identified Carter on video.
- Law enforcement executed a search warrant at Carter’s Baton Rouge residence and vehicle, seizing electronics, ammunition, weapons, bags, zip-ties, mesh bags, and items matching Radio Shack property; stolen phones’ IMEI numbers were traced to Carter and Martin.
- Carter was convicted by a jury on all eight counts, sentenced to concurrent 99-year terms on each armed robbery charge plus a consecutive five-year sentence under La. R.S. 14:64.3, and appealed.
- On appeal Carter challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence (identity) for four counts, (2) denial of a new trial alleging non-unanimous verdicts, (3) admission of other-crimes evidence (Mobile robbery and Martin’s testimony), (4) admission of a cell phone seized without warrant (Riley contention), and (5) photographic lineups’ suggestiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Carter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove identity for counts 1,2,7,8 | Eyewitness IDs, surveillance video, co-defendant confession, and forensic tracing of stolen phones prove identity beyond reasonable doubt | IDs were unreliable; evidence insufficient to tie Carter to those specific robberies | Affirmed — jurors could reasonably credit IDs, video, and Martin’s admissions; identity proven beyond reasonable doubt |
| Motion for new trial based on alleged non-unanimous verdicts | Verdicts were valid under Louisiana law (State v. Edwards) | Claimed ten-to-two non-unanimous verdicts violated federal Constitution and warranted new trial | Denied — record contains no polling or proof of non-unanimity; Louisiana precedent upholds non-unanimous verdicts at that time |
| Admissibility of other-crimes evidence (Mobile robbery; Martin’s testimony) | Evidence was res gestae / integral to narrative and showed how investigators developed suspects (IMEI trace); admissible for intent, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake | Mobile robbery and Martin’s extra testimony were prejudicial and irrelevant; should have been excluded under La. C.E. art. 404(B) | Affirmed — Mobile robbery evidence and Martin’s testimony were properly admitted as integral act/res gestae and relevant to investigative sequence and identity |
| Admission of Nicole Carter’s cell phone (Riley issue) | Cell phone evidence was admitted and linked by IMEI; defendant raised no timely suppression of that phone at trial | Seizure/admission violated Riley v. California; warrant required for cell‑phone search/seizure | Waived — defendant failed to press suppression pretrial or object to lack of ruling; appeal on Riley ground not preserved |
| Suppression of photographic lineups (Nickleson & Reimann) | Lineups were conducted with caution; witnesses warned; prior media exposure was inadvertent and non‑state‑sourced; reliability factors supported admissibility | Lineups were unduly suggestive and tainted by news publicity, creating a substantial likelihood of misidentification | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; viewing defendant’s photo in media is not per se suggestive and Manson factors supported reliability |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes the standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (reliability factors control admissibility of suggestive pretrial identifications)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (cell‑phone searches implicate heightened Fourth Amendment scrutiny)
- State v. Edwards, 420 So.2d 663 (La. 1982) (upheld constitutionality of non‑unanimous jury verdicts under state law)
- State v. Taylor, 838 So.2d 729 (La. 2003) (res gestae/integral‑act doctrine permits other‑acts evidence necessary to explain investigative sequence)