State v. Carter, 84 So. 3d 499

Terrance Carter was indicted on July 19, 2006, for first-degree murder of Corinthian Houston in Red River Parish.
Venue was moved to Lincoln Parish due to pre-trial publicity; sequestered jurors were brought back to Red River Parish for trial.
Jury found Carter guilty of first-degree murder; penalty phase yielded a unanimous death recommendation after aggravating- and victim-age findings.
Carter moved for a new trial; after initially withdrawing portions of the motion, the Second Circuit remanded for capacity and withdrawal issues; trial court later allowed withdrawal and imposed death sentence.
The appeal asserts 25 assignments of error plus 3 supplemental assignments, with the most significant challenges relating to conflict of interest, admission of a police-officer’s credibility notes, and the withdrawal of the motion for a new trial.
The court affirms the conviction and death sentence after reviewing the arguments, the record, and related appendix materials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Conflict of interest prevention	Carter argues potential conflict because co-counsel was under criminal investigation	Risk of conflict not adequately mitigated; waiver not knowing or intelligent	No actual conflict proven; waiver not required; trial court properly relied on inquiry and evidence.
Admission of officer’s credibility notes	Notes in transcript communicated officer’s impressions of credibility	Notes improper as commenting on credibility and containing micro-expressions	Notes treated as non-credibility-imputing observations; admissible as lay observations under La.C.E. 701.
Withdrawal of motion for new trial	State argues withdrawal was permissible after competency findings	Withdrawal violated due process; Faretta-like rights; required sanity commission	No due-process violation; defendant competent; withdrawal valid under trial court’s inquiry; no Faretta waiver needed.
Attorney-client privilege at motion	Co-counsel testimony violated privilege	Privilege should bar disclosure of communications	No privileged communications improperly admitted; testimony fell within exceptions and work-product/privacy rules.

Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (conflict of interest requires showing actual conflict or prejudice)
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1978) (conflicts of interest and effective assistance considerations)
State v. Cisco, 861 So.2d 118 (La. 2003) (conflicts of interest; need for adequate inquiry and proper waiver)
State v. Tart, 672 So.2d 116 (La. 1996) (conflict of interest and waivers; Holloway/Tart framework)
State v. Kahey, 436 So.2d 475 (La. 1983) (actual conflict defined by conflicting duties; proof by record)
Zuck v. Alabama, 588 F.2d 436 (5th Cir. 1979) (definitional framework for actual conflict of interest)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to represent oneself; Faretta inquiry standards)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938) (intelligent waiver of counsel requires knowing understanding of consequences)