State v. LeBlanc
76 So. 3d 572
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- LeBlanc was charged with theft of AT&T copper cable valued at $500 or more for August 1, 2007.
- The trial court denied suppression and admitted evidence; Daubert hearing upheld the cable's valuation method.
- The defendant was found incompetent at various lunacy hearings, then deemed competent to proceed on December 3, 2009, with trial held January 6, 2010.
- AT&T witnesses identified cable in the defendant's truck; the cable weighed about 349 pounds and was roughly 600 feet long.
- AT&T supervisor Chad Clark valued the cable at about $1,343.65 (based on $3.85 per pound) in March/April 2008, but there was no evidence of the value on August 1, 2007.
- The appellate court ultimately reversed the conviction for theft of $500+ and remanded for a conviction of theft of lesser value and resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: value of property at stake | LeBlanc contends evidence proves $500+ value. | LeBlanc asserts value cannot be shown at $500+ on the theft date. | Insufficient to prove $500+ value on theft date; remand for lesser value. |
| Valuation timing | Value seven to eight months after the theft can establish value. | Date-of-theft value cannot be inferred from post-theft valuation. | No rational basis to conclude $500+ value on the theft date; remand for valuation under $300. |
| Napue/false testimony | State allegedly presented false valuations through Clark. | Napue violation due to false testimony merits relief. | Napue issue moot after reducing value; no merit on its own. |
| Effective assistance/conflict of interest claims | Claims of ineffective assistance and conflict warrant reversal. | Counsel conflicts and ineffective assistance should be affirmed. | No merit; issues may be raised in post-conviction relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Huckabay, 809 So.2d 1093 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2002) (sufficiency review framework for contrived or circumstantial cases)
- State v. Williams, 610 So.2d 129 (La. 1992) (value of stolen property; depreciation considerations; some value sufficient)
- State v. Hoskin, 605 So.2d 650 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1992) (owner's testimony admissible to prove value when clear and uncontradicted)
- State v. Collins, 588 So.2d 766 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1991) (owner’s estimation corroborated by officer admissible to prove value)
- State v. Moses, 806 So.2d 83 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2001) (photographs alone may or may not establish value; context matters)
- State v. Armstead, 572 So.2d 762 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990) (valuation of stolen property between $100 and $500 based on purchase price)