State v. Griffin, 176 So. 3d 561

Griffin was charged July 11, 2008 with attempted second degree murder and felon in possession of a firearm; arraigned July 17, 2008 and pled not guilty.
The State sought severance from the gun charge; a prior stipulation and rulings led to disputes about whether charges could be tried together.
Louisiana Supreme Court ruled the trial court erred when later allowing joint trial of the gun and murder charges after an initial stipulation to sever.
A three-day jury trial on the attempted murder charge began January 18, 2012, resulting in a guilty verdict; sentencing occurred January 11, 2013 as a third-felony habitual offender to 40 years without parole or suspension.
The State later supplemented the appellate record with victim medical records to analyze whether exclusion of certain evidence denied Griffin his defense; Griffin appealed various evidentiary and procedural rulings.
There is an ancillary note that on January 21, 2014, the felon-in-possession charge was nolle prosequied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the alibi notice/witness issue properly preserved?	Griffin—Griffin argues alibi notice and witness testimony should have been admitted.	Griffin—No proper preservation because no ruling or proffer.	Not preserved; no ruling or proffer; no relief.
Did exclusion of Kim Knatt’s proffered testimony violate Griffin’s right to present a defense?	Griffin contends exclusion impeded defense.	State contends testimony inadmissible hearsay and not trustworthy.	No reversible error; right to defense not violated.
Did trial counsel’s handling of the alleged exclusion amount to ineffective assistance?	Griffin claims counsel failed to pursue defense rights.	No prejudice from excluded testimony; claims fail.	No ineffective assistance.
Did the Palumbo remark about arrest for felon-in-possession require mistrial under Art. 771?	Griffin seeks mistrial due to reference to prior felony conviction.	Remark was elicited in response to defense questioning; not reversible prejudice.	No abuse of discretion; mistrial not warranted.
Were the evidentiary rulings and record supplementation proper to evaluate Griffin’s defense rights?	Griffin relies on supplemented medical records to support defense.		Record supplementation allowed; rulings sustained; no merit shown.

State v. Magee, 103 So.3d 285 (La. 2012) (proffer requirement to review excluded evidencePUBLIC record; preservation proper preservation required)
State v. Clemons, 811 So.2d 1047 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2002) (no ruling found on objection; thus not reviewable)
State v. Casey, 775 So.2d 1022 (La. 2000) (compelling defense rights; reliable evidence admissibility)
State v. Juniors, 915 So.2d 291 (La. 2005) (exception to hearsay for defense rights; highly unusual)
State v. Gremillion, 542 So.2d 1074 (La. 1989) (trustworthiness/necessity for hearsay exceptions in defense)