145 So. 3d 521
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Charles Gross charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana in Jefferson Parish; arraigned May 28, 2013; suppression motions denied October 24, 2013.
- Trial October 30–31, 2013; jury convicted by 10–2 verdict.
- State filed a multiple offender bill; defendant stipulated; enhanced sentence imposed to 15 years under La. R.S. 15:529.1.
- Detective Picarella observed suspected hand-to-hand drug transaction at 4700 Jefferson Highway complex, prompting stop of Gross.
- Consent search of Gross’s vehicle yielded 27 grams of marijuana in 14 bags; Gross was arrested and Mirandized; he admitted selling marijuana.
- Sergeant Modica testified that packaging suggests distribution; issues on mistrial and 704; conviction and enhanced sentence affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stop and seizure were valid. | State argues reasonable suspicion supported stop. | Gross contends lack of reasonable suspicion. | Stop valid; reasonable suspicion established. |
| Whether the consent search and resulting statements were admissible. | State asserts voluntary consent; Miranda warnings given. | Defense challenges voluntariness of consent and reading of Miranda. | Admissible; consent voluntary; Miranda warnings appropriate. |
| Whether expert testimony violated La. C.E. 704 and warranted mistrial. | State's questions mirrored facts; testimony aided prosecution. | Testimony impermissibly expressed ultimate issue of guilt. | No reversible error; jury instructed; no mistrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sam, 988 So.2d 765 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008) (reasonable suspicion and totality of circumstances for stop; informs tolerance of informants)
- State v. Boss, 887 So.2d 581 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2004) (reasonable suspicion standard for investigatory stops; deference to police inferences)
- State v. Fearheiley, 979 So.2d 487 (La. 2008) (hand-to-hand drug transaction as basis for suspicion)
- State v. Wheeler, 416 So.2d 78 (La. 1982) (prosecutor’s hypothetical to expert may conflate guilt opinion)
- State v. Johnson, 52 So.3d 110 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2010) (hypothetical testimony near ultimate issue; mistrial not warranted given curative instructions)
- State v. Deal, 802 So.2d 1254 (La. 2001) (Art. 704 prohibits expert’s opinion on guilt or innocence)