96 So. 3d 605
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Everett and Crump were indicted for the June 30, 2007 first degree murder of Arthur Jackson; they pled not guilty.
- Motions to suppress were denied; Everett moved to sever, which was denied; the charge was later amended to second degree murder.
- On trial, the court prohibited Davis’ out-of-court identification but allowed defendant lineups and in-court identifications; witnesses identified Crump and Everett.
- Shooting occurred at a car shop; multiple witnesses (Allen, Stokes, Nekeia, Sanders, Davis) identified the defendants; victim died from seven gunshot wounds.
- Defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the hearsay/identity issues, and various trial rulings; verdicts were guilty as charged with life sentences.
- Post-trial motions for new trial were denied; the appellate court ultimately affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for second degree murder | Crump argued identifications were biased and evidence was insufficient. | Everett argued lack of physical link and questionable identifications negate guilt. | Evidence supported specific intent and identity; sufficient to convict both. |
| Admissibility of Davis’ identification statement (hearsay/confrontation) | Davis’ identification was admissible; corroborated by other witnesses. | Davis’ statement is hearsay and violated confrontation rights; Michigan v. Bryant analysis urged exclusion. | Admissible as excited utterance and non-testimonial; harmless error substantiated by other evidence. |
| Severance of co-defendants | Joint trial would prejudice Everett; severance required if defenses antagonistic. | Severance needed because one co-defendant’s case could implicate the other. | No abuse of discretion; defenses not antagonistic; joinder proper. |
| Admission of other crimes/Bad acts evidence under 404(B) | Evidence of weapons, threats, and related conduct relevant to motive/identity/intent. | Evidence included improper other-crimes and prejudicial closing arguments. | Not error requiring reversal; admissions were within res gestae or probative value outweighed prejudice; harmless in light of trial record. |
| Non-unanimous jury verdict for hard-labor crimes | Unanimity not required under current jurisprudence; long-standing practice upholds conviction. | Non-unanimous verdict violated Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. | Non-unanimous twelve-person verdicts constitutional; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La. 1988) (identification credibility not for appellate reweighing; Jackson standard applied)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
- State v. Brealy, 800 So.2d 1116 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2001) (Manson criteria for eyewitness identification)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2004) (confrontation clause and testimonial hearsay)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2006) (non-testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1959) (due process; prosecutorial knowledge of false testimony)
- State v. Bertrand, 6 So.3d 738 (La. 2009) (non-unanimous jury rule efficiency under federal standard)
- State v. Barbour, 35 So.3d 1142 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (upholding non-unanimous verdict framework)