State v. McKinnies, 119 So. 3d 147

Defendant Quincy McKinnies, Jr. was charged with aggravated assault on a peace officer with a firearm under La. Rev. Stat. 14:37.2.
Trial resulted in a guilty verdict on October 18, 2011.
On November 3, 2011, defendant moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence regarding Officer Mekdessie’s credibility.
The trial court granted the motion on January 5, 2012 under La.C.Cr.P. art. 851(5) for ends of justice.
The State sought review; the court issued a per curiam and remanded for further proceedings; the case returned to trial court proceedings in 2012.
The trial evidenced a confrontation with multiple officers, Mekdessie and Gibbs, involving a chase, gunfire, and a later pursuit of defendant where the defense claimed lack of credibility in the new evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the new-trial grant proper under 851 grounds?	State contends grant rested on improper basis not raised by defense.	McKinnies argues the court acted within 851(5) and properly granted a new trial.	Affirmed; trial court validly granted under 851(5).
Did the court abuse its discretion by granting under 851(1) while not enough grounds were raised?	State claims only grounds raised by defendant may be considered.	McKinnies contends court exceeded grounds; or at least should rely on the grounds raised.	No abuse; court articulated reasonable doubt and weight of evidence supports 851(1).
Did the court properly articulate reasons for the 851(5) grant?	State argues articulation was insufficient per Guillory.	McKinnies asserts court identified reasonable doubt as basis.	Court's articulation adequate; established ends of justice as basis for new trial.
Was the new-evidence requirement of 851(3) satisfied for Mekdessie’s credibility evidence?	State argues not newly discovered or could not affect verdict.	McKinnies asserts evidence related to credibility could influence verdict.	Not necessary to resolve; ruling upheld because new-trial grant did not hinge solely on this evidence.
Is the outcome harmless error given the grant?	State argues error, if any, is harmless.	McKinnies maintains ends of justice warranted new trial.	Harmless error analysis not grounds to reverse; decision affirmed.

State v. Guillory, 45 So.3d 612 (La. 2010) (art. 851(5) review; requires articulation of concerns; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Raines, 788 So.2d 635 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2001) (motion for new trial; threshold injustice requirement)
State v. Azema, 633 So.2d 723 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1993) (weight of the evidence as a fact-bound determinate not reviewable on appeal)
State v. Perrin, 897 So.2d 749 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2005) (error patent review; guidance on 851 review)
Humphrey, 445 So.2d 1155 (La. 1984) (trial court discretion in new-trial rulings; standard of review)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (weight of the evidence concept; not subject to appellate review in criminal cases)