106 So. 3d 1062
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant, David C. Guidry, was convicted by jury of carrying a concealed weapon under LSA-R.S. 14:95.1 and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment.
- Incident occurred September 24, 2011 in Kenner; police received multiple 9-1-1 calls describing a man in camouflage brandishing weapons.
- Officer Donovan retrieved an axe and a large knife from Guidry, which were concealed under clothing; trial evidence included the actual clothing worn.
- Defense sought to wear the clothing during demonstrative viewing to show concealment; the court allowed floor display but denied wearing the clothes.
- Court found no constitutional error in how demonstrative evidence was handled and addressed an alleged error patent regarding fines, ultimately affirming conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the denial of wearing clothing for demonstration an abuse of discretion? | State: floor display suffices for demonstrative purposes. | Guidry: wearing clothing needed to show concealment. | No abuse; floor display plus cross-examination satisfied presentation of defense. |
| Is the demonstrative display of clothing admissible and helpful to determine concealment? | State: demonstrative evidence allowed; no prejudice. | Guidry: clothing worn would better illustrate concealment. | Demonstrative use was within trial court discretion and not error. |
| Whether the sentence constitutes an illegally lenient sentence requiring correction? | None stated beyond appeal; court may correct illegal sentences. | Indigent status prevents correction of illegal leniency. | Court affirmed conviction and sentence; declined to correct the sentence due to indigence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hutchinson, 817 So.2d 500 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2002) (demonstrative evidence rules and clothing display not error when not comparable to actual wearing)
- State v. Alexander, 602 So.2d 291 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1992) (demonstration denied; alternative methods allowed; not reversible error)
- State v. Martin, 519 So.2d 87 (La.1988) (demonstrative clothing as non-testimonial evidence; permissible)
- State v. Gilmer, 604 So.2d 117 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1992) (demonstrative evidence rules; admissibility within court’s discretion)
- State v. Ramirez, 80 So.3d 833 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (relevance and admissibility balancing; not all relevant evidence is admissible)