169 So. 3d 510
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Quentin McClure was convicted after an eight-day jury trial of second-degree murder (Pierce), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, intimidation of a witness, and conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice; co-defendants were Chasity Griffin and Jeffery Nelson.
- Pierce was fatally shot January 2, 2011; eyewitness Charles Smith (neighbor) identified McClure and Griffin in photo lineups and later was murdered August 17, 2011, one day before a suppression hearing regarding his identifications.
- Ballistics and reconstruction experts concluded multiple shooters fired at Pierce; cell records placed McClure and Griffin in the area; murder weapons were not recovered.
- Investigators introduced numerous recorded jailhouse phone calls from McClure, Griffin, and others; Detective Vasquez testified identifying speakers and interpreting slang used in the calls (e.g., that “b*tch” could mean an untraceable firearm).
- The trial court admitted Smith’s preexisting statement to police under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing hearsay exception; McClure was sentenced to concurrent terms (life for murder and various long terms for other counts), but the 10-year sentence for attempted felon-in-possession was vacated on appeal as exceeding the statutory maximum and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | McClure's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree murder and conspiracy to obstruct justice | Evidence (Smith’s ID, cell data, ballistics, jail calls) permits a rational juror to convict beyond a reasonable doubt | Smith was unreliable; alibi witnesses placed McClure elsewhere; evidence insufficient for conspiracy absent expert interpretation of slang | Affirmed: jury rationally credited Smith and the phone-call evidence; conspiracy conviction sustainable viewing all evidence in light most favorable to prosecution |
| Denial of challenges for cause to four prospective jurors | Voir dire showed jurors could follow law; trial court did not abuse discretion | Some jurors expressed confusing answers about burden of proof or wanting defendant to testify, warranting cause strikes | Affirmed: trial court properly exercised discretion; where co-defendants’ peremptory strikes removed two jurors, McClure not prejudiced |
| Admissibility of Det. Vasquez’s lay testimony interpreting jailhouse calls/slang | Officer may testify as lay witness from personal perception/experience about speaker identity and slang meaning | Interpretation (e.g., “b*tch” = untraceable gun) was expert opinion requiring qualification; prejudicial and critical to conspiracy theory | Affirmed: Vasquez’s interpretations were permissible lay opinion under La. C.E. art. 701 (experience-based, everyday reasoning), not requiring expert qualification |
| Admission of Smith’s statement (hearsay) under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing | State proved by preponderance that defendants engaged/acquiesced in wrongdoing intended to procure Smith’s unavailability, so Crawford confrontation bar excused | State failed to show McClure procured Smith’s death; admission violated confrontation rights | Affirmed: trial court properly found McClure acquiesced in wrongdoing and exception applied; admission did not violate confrontation clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause limits on testimonial hearsay)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing requires intent to prevent testimony)
- King v. United States, 74 A.3d 678 (D.C. 2013) (police lay interpretation of street slang may be admissible as lay testimony)
- State v. Harrell, 811 So.2d 1015 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (circumstantial-evidence sufficiency principles applied)
- State v. Cowart, 815 So.2d 275 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (identity as element and need to negate reasonable misidentification)