State v. Dillard
2010 La. App. LEXIS 1513
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- Dillard was convicted of first degree robbery and adjudicated a second felony offender, sentenced to 60 years without benefits.
- On Feb 14, 2008, he robbed a Family Dollar in Shreveport, using a weapon and fleeing on a pink bicycle after collecting cash.
- Bounds, the store manager, identified Dillard at trial; Moore, a customer, followed and helped police describe the suspect.
- Police conducted show-ups and many witnesses identified Dillard; several items (clothing, bicycle) were recovered.
- Discovery problems triggered mistrials; after two mistrials, evidence disclosures continued, and Dillard faced a third trial.
- At trial, identification and hearsay issues were raised; Staton and Osborne did not testify, affecting confrontation rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Bounds's identification suffices to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | Identifications were unreliable or hearsay; no corroborating physical evidence. | Evidence, including Bounds's testimony, was sufficient to sustain guilty verdict. |
| Hearsay and present sense/excited utterance | Moore's statements to officers fall within present sense impression/excited utterance. | Post-event statements by Moore should be excluded as hearsay since declarant is unavailable. | Moore's statements fit present sense impression; admissible under hearsay exceptions. |
| Identification by Staton/Osborne and confrontation | Officer testimony of third-party identifications is permissible as corroboration. | Confrontation rights violated by admitting identifications without the witnesses. | Waiver occurred; any confrontation error was harmless given Bounds's testimony and overall strength of the case. |
| Denial of new trial/post-verdict relief | Contempt-witness testimony could yield new material evidence affecting outcome. | New evidence could be significant; miscommunication caused potential prejudice. | Court properly denied new trial/post-verdict relief; no abuse of discretion. |
| Double jeopardy and state-file disclosure to witnesses | Two mistrials due to prosecutorial discovery failures violated double jeopardy and fairness. | Mistrials due to negligence; retrial permissible; disclosure did not taint trial. | No double jeopardy violation; state-file disclosure to witnesses was not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (mistrial issues require bad-faith or intentional misconduct for double jeopardy)
- State v. Paddio, 832 So.2d 1120 (La.App. 3d Cir. 2002) (negligence in disclosure does not automatically bar retrial)
- State v. Koelemay, 497 So.2d 321 (La.App.2d Cir. 1986) (double jeopardy considerations in retrial contexts)
- State v. Haynes, 34 So.3d 325 (La.App.5th Cir. 2010) (confrontation and admissibility of police-informant/third-party testimony; harmless error analysis)
- State v. Robertson, 988 So.2d 166 (La. 2008) (harmless error framework for evidentiary mistakes)
- State v. Smith, 839 So.2d 1 (La. 2003) (excessive-sentence standards under state constitution)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (sufficiency standard for proving elements beyond reasonable doubt)