State v. Neely
171 So. 3d 1022
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Andrew Neely, Jr. was charged with home invasion in the presence of a child (La. R.S. 14:62.8(B)(3)); convicted by jury after a second trial and adjudicated a second felony offender.
- Incident: victim Brianna Moret, home alone with her 2‑year‑old, reported someone forcing entry during Hurricane Isaac; 911 call played at trial; victim and multiple officers identified Neely at the scene.
- Pretrial and trial dispute: defendant sought to introduce extrinsic evidence to show police witness bias (including alleged federal investigation and misconduct by officer Jamal Kendricks); State moved to exclude that evidence and the trial court granted the State’s motion.
- Kendricks was not called or served with a subpoena at trial; defense proffered prior motion hearing questions.
- Sentencing: after adjudication as a second felony offender, Neely sought a downward departure from the mandatory minimum based on age (58) and poor health; court denied the motion and imposed 15 years at hard labor, 10 years without benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extrinsic evidence to show police witness bias | State: exclude extrinsic evidence of unrelated misconduct/investigation under La. C.E. arts. 608(B) and 607(D) | Neely: evidence of officer misconduct and federal investigation was admissible to show bias and impeach officers | Trial court did not err in granting State’s motion; exclusion proper under articles 607/608; any error harmless given strong ID and 911 evidence |
| Denial of downward departure from habitual offender mandatory minimum | State: mandatory minimum presumptively constitutional; no clear and convincing evidence to rebut | Neely: age and serious health conditions make him an exceptional case warranting downward departure | Court affirmed denial — defendant failed to show clear and convincing evidence of an exceptional case; sentence supported by offense facts and extensive criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (harmless‐error framework for Confrontation Clause errors)
- State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (presumption of constitutionality of habitual offender sentences)
- State v. Johnson, 709 So.2d 672 (La. 1998) (clear and convincing evidence required to rebut mandatory minimum presumption)
- State v. Vale, 666 So.2d 1070 (La. 1996) (cross‑examination about pending charges may show bias)
- State v. Adams, 119 So.3d 46 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2013) (extrinsic evidence of unconvicted particular acts precluded under La. C.E. art. 608(B))
- State v. Thompson, 10 So.3d 851 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing impeachment by pending investigations vs. need for direct impeachment evidence)