State v. Henderson
107 So. 3d 566
La.2013Background
- State seeks supervisory relief from trial court ruling on admissibility of defendant's 1999 armed robbery convictions as 404(b) evidence when defendant may or may not testify or invoke Fifth Amendment.
- Trial court held the 1999 conviction inadmissible if defendant invokes Fifth Amendment silence, but admissible surrounding events under 404(b).
- Court holds the 1999 conviction admissible under 404(b)(1) regardless of defendant’s trial testimony or silence.
- Admissibility requires independent, relevant reason under 404(b)(1) and must pass 403 balancing against prejudice, confusion, or delay.
- Prior bad acts may be probative and admitted if they prove a material issue and are not unduly prejudicial, and there is no conflict with 609.1 in this context.
- Writ granted; trial court’s ruling reversed; remanded for proceedings consistent with 404(b) analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b)(1) allows admissibility of the 1999 conviction regardless of Fifth Amendment invocation. | State argues 404(b) admissibility based on independent relevance. | Defendant contends 404(b) balance or silence affects admissibility. | Admissible under 404(b)(1) regardless of testimony or silence. |
| Whether 609.1 interplay with 404(b) affects admissibility when defendant does not testify. | 609.1 concerns impeachment of witnesses; not applicable here. | Invoking 5th Amendment renders 609.1 irrelevant for conviction admissibility. | Not implicated; admissibility unaffected. |
| Whether the probative value of the 404(b) evidence outweighs potential prejudice. | Evidence is probative to show defendant’s crimes and disprove defense. | Risk of unfair prejudice could outweigh probative value. | Probative value outweighs prejudice under 403. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the conviction under 404(b) addressed here. | Exclusion undermines admissibility of the defendant’s prior conviction. | Exclusion was proper if not meeting 404(b) standards. | Abuse of discretion; conviction admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henderson, 99 So.3d 657 (La.10/26/12) (affirmed admissibility framework for 404(b) evidence)
- State v. Galliano, 839 So.2d 932 (La.1/10/03) (balancing test under 404(b); burden on state to prove acts)
- State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La.1973) (established 404(b) execution balancing)
- State v. Crawford, 672 So.2d 197 (La.App.3 Cir. 1996) (609.1 relevance to impeachment of witnesses; not applicable here)
- State v. Germain, 433 So.2d 110 (La.1983) (defines 'unfair prejudice' in 403 balancing)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (Supreme Court 1997) (limits on introducing prior convictions to prove guilt)
- State v. Rose, 949 So.2d 1236 (La.2007) (unfair prejudice concept in 403 balancing)
- Crawford v. State, 672 So.2d 197 (La.App.3 Cir. 1996) (impeachment and 609.1 interaction noted)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (Supreme Court 1997) (unfair prejudice and reliability considerations)