State v. Landrieu, 274 So. 3d 661

Background

Defendant Kenneth Landrieu, an honorary reserve deputy (not POST‑certified), was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm for pointing a handgun at Joseph Harris during an on‑road confrontation after an attempted traffic stop.
Harris testified Landrieu brandished a gun, threatened him, and caused Harris to fear for his life; Landrieu stipulated he was the person who confronted Harris with the gun.
Police recovered the handgun from Landrieu and Harris identified it at trial; OPSO counsel testified Landrieu never registered the gun, was not POST‑certified, and did not follow OPSO protocols.
Defense sought to introduce: (1) evidence of Harris’s federal § 1983 lawsuit, (2) demonstration/photograph of the gun’s operation, and (3) a recorded conversation among officers; the trial court excluded each as irrelevant/hearsay.
Defense also sought to excuse a venireperson for cause who expressed political dislike of the Landrieu family; the court denied the challenge and defense used a peremptory (and later exhausted peremptories).
On appeal the court affirmed: sufficiency of the evidence, admissibility rulings, and denial of the challenge for cause.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault with a firearm	State: Harris’s uncontradicted testimony and ID plus defendant’s stipulation prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt	Landrieu: actions were justified by his reserve deputy commission and authority	Held: Evidence sufficient; pointing a firearm and causing apprehension supports aggravated assault; justification rebutted by OPSO testimony and stipulation that he was not POST‑certified
Admissibility of victim’s federal §1983 suit	State: Civil allegations are irrelevant to criminal justification and impeachment here	Landrieu: federal suit shows bias/inconsistency and supports justification defense	Held: Exclusion proper — §1983 analysis differs from criminal justification; victim’s suit not inconsistent with testimony; any error harmless given uncontradicted facts
Demonstration/photograph of firearm functionality	State: Functionality irrelevant to assault charge because operability not required	Landrieu: demonstration would impeach victim’s account of how he handled the gun	Held: Exclusion proper — operability not an element and defendant had stipulated he brandished a gun
Admission of recorded officer conversation (unavailable witnesses)	Landrieu: recording shows victim lacked fear and officers were unavailable so recording admissible	State: Officers not shown to be unavailable; recording is hearsay within hearsay and fits no exception	Held: Exclusion proper — defendant failed to show diligent efforts to secure attendance; recording doesn’t meet hearsay exceptions
Challenge for cause of juror who disliked the Landrieu family	State: juror affirmed ability to be fair	Landrieu: juror’s admitted political hostility to family prevented impartiality	Held: Denial of challenge not an abuse of discretion — juror stated he could be fair and voir dire did not show inability to judge impartially

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Brown, 234 So. 3d 978 (pointing weapon and threats establish general intent for assault)
State in Interest of C.B., 251 So. 3d 562 (operability not required to sustain aggravated assault with a firearm)
State v. Creel, 508 So. 2d 859 (excluding civil‑suit evidence harmless when facts uncontradicted)
Driscoll v. Stucker, 893 So. 2d 32 (witness not "unavailable" absent diligent, good‑faith effort to secure presence)
Guidry v. Bernard, 142 So. 3d 1063 (proponent bears burden to prove unavailability)
State v. Martin, 483 So. 2d 1223 (appeal not dismissed when sentence imposed after appeal granted)
State v. Mosby, 595 So. 2d 1135 (trial court discretion on relevancy/admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)