State v. Murphy
206 So. 3d 219
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Donald Murphy communicated via Kik with M.R., a 12‑year‑old, exchanging hundreds of messages and sexually explicit photos/videos; victim sent images of her genitals and complied with directed sexual acts.
- Law enforcement (AG Cyber Crimes Unit) obtained chat logs, images, and videos; defendant was arrested, Mirandized, and gave a recorded confession admitting the contacts and exchanges.
- Defendant was charged on six counts: four counts of production of pornography involving a juvenile (counts 1–4), one count of computer‑aided solicitation (count 5), and one count of unlawful use of a social networking website requiring proof of a prior sex‑offense conviction (count 6).
- Jury convicted on all counts; trial court later granted new trial as to count 6 because the State’s evidence of the prior conviction was uncertified; State nol‑prossed count 6.
- The State filed a habitual‑offender bill seeking enhancement as to counts 1–4; defendant adjudicated a second‑felony offender and sentenced to concurrent terms (99 years on each of counts 1–4; 10 years on count 5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Denial of challenges for cause to two jurors | State: jurors answered they could be fair; no disqualification solely for law‑enforcement employment. | Murphy: prospective jurors employed in/connected to law enforcement (deputy; FBI IT specialist) could not be impartial and should have been excused. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; defendant failed to show prejudice and did not exhaust peremptories such that prejudice would be presumed. |
| 2) Denial of motion to sever count 6 | State: counts were properly joined (same victim, related transactions); evidence was segregable and any prior‑conviction evidence related to count 6 only. | Murphy: count 6 required proof of prior conviction; joinder permitted prejudicial introduction of prior conviction and confused guilt on other counts. | Joinder permitted under La. C.Cr.P. art. 493; no showing of prejudice; limiting instructions sufficed. |
| 3) Denial of motions for mistrial based on prosecutorial remarks and elicited testimony | State: remarks/comments were within latitude for opening/closing or related to integral acts; any improper remarks were remedied by objections and jury admonitions. | Murphy: prosecutor’s prosecutorial and inflammatory comments and eliciting of other‑crimes evidence deprived defendant of fair trial; some testimony improperly introduced. | Court found misconduct inappropriate but not so prejudicial as to deprive fairness given overwhelming evidence (including confession) and repeated jury admonitions; mistrials not warranted; some complaints unpreserved. |
| 4) Habitual‑offender enhancement and sentencing specificity | State: sought enhancement for counts 1–4; trial court adjudicated habitual offender as to counts 1–4 and imposed separate sentences, to run concurrently. | Murphy: trial court failed to specify which counts were enhanced and imposed indeterminate or non‑separate sentences. | Record shows bill sought enhancement of counts 1–4; trial court expressly adjudicated counts 1–4 and imposed separate sentences; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robertson, 630 So.2d 1278 (presumption of prejudice when challenge for cause denied and peremptories exhausted)
- State v. Ballard, 747 So.2d 1077 (law‑enforcement juror not disqualified per se; case‑by‑case impartiality inquiry)
- State v. Deruise, 802 So.2d 1224 (factors for prejudice from joinder of offenses)
- State v. Odenbaugh, 82 So.3d 215 (integral‑act exception and admissibility of other‑crimes evidence)
- State v. Madison, 345 So.2d 485 (deliberate elicitation of impermissible other‑crimes testimony can mandate mistrial)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (harmless‑error test for constitutional errors)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (prosecutors must not "strike foul ones" in advocacy)