169 So. 3d 473
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Jan. 2, 2011 Theodore Pierce was fatally shot in Bridge City; eyewitness Charles Smith identified Chasity Griffin and co-defendant Quentin McClure as shooters. Smith later was murdered on Aug. 17, 2011. Griffin, McClure, and Jeffrey Nelson were charged in related murders and obstruction counts.
- Griffin was tried with McClure and Nelson; jury convicted Griffin of second-degree murder (La. R.S. 14:30.1), felon-in-possession (La. R.S. 14:95.1), and conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice (La. R.S. 14:26 & 14:130.1). Sentences were concurrent life without parole on murder, 20 years on felon-in-possession, and 30 years on conspiracy.
- Key evidence: Smith’s pre-death statement identifying Griffin and McClure; ballistics and scene reconstruction indicating multiple shooters; jailhouse phone recordings of Griffin, McClure and others discussing Smith and using coded language.
- Trial rulings of significance: (1) trial court ultimately admitted Smith’s out-of-court statement under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception (La. C.E. art. 804(B)(7)(a)); (2) Detective Vasquez testified as a lay witness identifying speakers and interpreting slang in recorded jail calls.
- On appeal Griffin challenged sufficiency of the evidence, denial of juror challenges for cause, admissibility of Vasquez’s interpretive testimony (claimed expert testimony), and admission of Smith’s hearsay statement. The convictions and sentences were affirmed; case remanded to correct clerical errors in the commitment form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions | State: combined eyewitness ID, ballistics, cell records, and jail calls suffice | Griffin: convictions rest on improperly admitted Vasquez interpretations and Smith hearsay; without them evidence is insufficient | Affirmed — viewing all evidence (including admitted hearsay), a rational juror could convict under Jackson v. Virginia standard |
| Denial of challenges for cause to prospective jurors | State: juror rulings were within trial court discretion | Griffin: court erred by denying challenges for cause (argued bias) | Waiver/forfeiture not detailed in opinion summary; appellate court did not find reversible error and convictions affirmed |
| Admission of Det. Vasquez’s testimony interpreting jail calls (claimed expert testimony) | State: Vasquez could identify speakers and interpret slang based on experience; lay testimony under La. C.E. art. 701 | Griffin: Vasquez gave specialized expert conclusions (street-slang meanings, intent) and should have been subject to Daubert-style expert qualification | Affirmed — court treated Vasquez as a lay witness; his identifications and slang interpretations were grounded in perception/experience and permissible under art. 701 (not expert opinion) |
| Admission of Smith’s out-of-court statement under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing | State: proved by preponderance that defendants engaged/acquiesced in wrongdoing that intended to and did make Smith unavailable; forfeiture exception applies despite Crawford | Griffin: State failed to prove she procured Smith’s unavailability; admission violated confrontation clause | Affirmed — trial court properly found the preponderance showing that Griffin engaged/acquiesced in wrongdoing to procure Smith’s unavailability; hearsay admitted under La. C.E. art. 804(B)(7) and did not violate Sixth Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (limitations on admitting testimonial hearsay absent prior cross-examination)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing requires intent to prevent witness testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (standard for admitting expert scientific testimony)
- State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992) (requirement to consider the entire record, admissible and inadmissible evidence, in sufficiency review)
- King v. United States, 74 A.3d 678 (D.C. 2013) (law-enforcement interpretation of street slang may be admissible as lay testimony when based on ordinary reasoning from experience)