250 So. 3d 273
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Lamont J. Nixon, Jr. was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for the fatal shooting of Vincent Naquin and sentenced to life at hard labor without benefits.
- Three masked intruders entered Naquin’s home; Naquin was shot once in the chest and died. Surveillance video and two .25 caliber spent cartridge cases were recovered; ballistics linked the cases to the same .25 auto.
- Investigators tied a white 1994 Cadillac to the crime scene; the Cadillac, owned by Nixon, was later found burned and abandoned. Witnesses reported seeing three men flee into that Cadillac the night of the shooting.
- Multiple witnesses implicated Nixon: a friend (Trent) testified Nixon borrowed a .25 handgun before the killing and later said he had "killed him" and ditched the gun; Nixon’s girlfriend (Jasmine) relayed admissions by Nixon; co-defendant Treyvance implicated Nixon as the shooter. Nixon testified he was at home and denied shooting Naquin.
- At trial the State moved in limine to exclude testimony suggesting an alternative suspect (Herbert Watkins), arguing hearsay, irrelevance, and undue prejudice; the court granted the motion. Defense objected and later moved for mistrial/admonition based on prosecution rebuttal comments about the defense not calling witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by granting State’s motion in limine to exclude testimony about Herbert Watkins (possible alternate suspect) | State: evidence about Watkins was hearsay, irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial; Watkins had been eliminated as a suspect and had no convictions supporting the innuendo | Nixon: exclusion prevented presentation of reasonable-doubt theory and violated right to present a defense | Court: No error — testimony would have been hearsay, unreliable, irrelevant, and prejudicial; exclusion did not deprive Nixon of his defense and any error was harmless |
| Whether prosecutor’s rebuttal comments improperly shifted burden or warranted mistrial/admonition | State: comments responded to defense closing arguing State failed to call available witnesses; prosecutor may point out defense chose not to call witnesses | Nixon: rebuttal suggested defendant failed to present evidence / shifted burden to defendant | Court: No abuse of discretion — comments were permissible rebuttal to defense argument; jury was properly instructed that burden remains with State; no mistrial required |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove Nixon was shooter / present at scene | State: combined forensic evidence (cartridge cases, ballistics), admissions to friends and girlfriend, and co-defendant statements establish identity beyond reasonable doubt | Nixon: identification insufficient; primary eyewitness (Krissan) did not positively identify him and identification factors (Manson/Biggers) favor defense | Court: Evidence sufficient — jury could credit testimony identifying Nixon, reject his alibi; circumstantial and testimonial evidence negated reasonable hypotheses of innocence |
| Whether hearsay exceptions or constitutional right to present a defense required admitting unreliable out-of-court statements (Krissan’s hearsay about Watkins) | Defense: constitutional right to present defense might allow admission of such out-of-court statements to show alternate suspect | State: statements lacked indicia of reliability and were inadmissible hearsay; admission would confuse and prejudice jury | Court: Held constitutional right does not override exclusion of untrustworthy, irrelevant hearsay; admission not required under compelling-circumstances doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (defendant’s right to present a defense may, in compelling circumstances, require admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (trial courts may exclude defense evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by other considerations)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Juniors, 915 So.2d 291 (La. 2005) (discusses admissibility of normally inadmissible hearsay under compelling circumstances)
- State v. Van Winkle, 658 So.2d 198 (La. 1995) (same)
- State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La. 1984) (appellate deference to jury credibility determinations)