153 So. 3d 481
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Mills was convicted by a jury of armed robbery, armed robbery with a firearm, aggravated obstruction of a highway, and two counts of attempted first degree murder.
- Habitual offender adjudication entered; Mills sentenced to 70 years at hard labor for armed robbery, 15 years for obstruction, 40 years for each attempted murder (concurrent with armed robbery), and a consecutive 5-year term for armed robbery with a firearm.
- Sentence for armed robbery later vacated after adjudication as a second-felony offender; overall sentence imposed as described above.
- Bank robbery occurred April 20, 2011 in Bogalusa, involving an accomplice (Aswell); money taken, silent alarm activated, and a police chase ensued with gunfire into Mississippi.
- Defendant testified that Aswell conceived the plan and that he participated under threat; he claimed he drove the Jeep while Aswell fired; officers and physical evidence contradicted his account.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Challenge for cause to jurors Jackson and Huang | Mills argues journal objections to Jackson and Huang were improper. | State contends no abuse; voir dire considered as a whole. | No abuse; Jackson impartial; Huang properly denied for-cause |
| Cross-examination of Aswell about maximum sentences | Confrontation right allows exposing bias via plea terms and maximum exposure. | Limit on questioning obscured leverage over Aswell. | Confrontation error; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Impeachment with civil petition in federal suit | Civil petition should be excluded as hearsay/not admissible against defendant. | Petition admissible as statement against interest; opened door. | Admissible; not hearsay; impeachment proper |
| Prosecutor’s closing remarks | Remarks were prejudicially inflammatory to defendant. | Court properly instructed that statements are not evidence; impact minimal. | Not reversible error; harmless in light of evidence and charge |
| Ineffective assistance claim for failing to object to remarks | Counsel should have objected; remarks prejudicial. | Record shows no prejudice; arguments were non-diagnostic. | Without merit; ineffective-assistance claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (confrontation rights and cross-examination of witnesses for bias)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (harmless-error framework for confrontation violations)
- State v. Rankin, 465 So.2d 681 (La. 1985) (bias may be shown by cross-examination and plea context)
- State v. Lilly, 111 So.3d 52 (La. 2013) (penalty disclosure and limits on informing jury of punishment)
- State v. Brown, 935 So.2d 211 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2006) (trial court deference in voir dire; standard of review)
- State v. Sparks, 68 So.3d 435 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2011) (consideration of juror responses in voir dire)
- State v. Claiborne, 397 So.2d 486 (La.1981) (trial judge’s duty to assess impartiality)
- State v. Rankin, 465 So.2d 681 (La.1985) (bias and cross-examination relevance)