185 So. 3d 188
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Lawhit L. Paul was tried by jury and convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute after officers executed a search warrant at his apartment and found ~21 grams of powder cocaine packaged in small bags inside a freezer. Defendant was sentenced to two years at hard labor. Appeal followed.
- Surveillance by detectives observed suspected hand-to-hand transactions at the apartment; one stopped buyer was found with marijuana. Officers linked a white Infiniti to the apartment and identified Paul as the resident.
- During the search, officers recovered six bags of cocaine from a Tyson chicken bag in the freezer, a separate inconclusive white powder, Ziploc bags with green residue, a digital scale box, ammunition (no gun), and evidence indicating primarily male occupancy. Some items were not submitted for drug residue testing.
- Defendant gave a recorded statement admitting the cocaine was in the freezer, that he sold powder cocaine, and describing his clientele and pricing; he later testified his confession was coerced by threats to arrest his mother.
- Defense witnesses (Shana Travis) testified she had brought and left the cocaine in the freezer after a club night; the jury rejected that explanation and found Paul guilty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove possession with intent to distribute | State: surveillance, defendant’s recorded confession, packaging, amount, expert testimony (cutting agent, distribution packaging), and paraphernalia support possession and intent | Paul: Travis twice stated under oath the cocaine was hers; Paul lacked knowledge of the drugs; confession coerced | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, rational juror could find constructive possession and intent beyond reasonable doubt (Jackson standard) |
| Motion for mistrial based on prosecutor’s closing insinuation of witness intimidation | State: comment was permissible argument responding to defense assertions; jury instructed; no contemporaneous objection | Paul: prosecutor’s remark insinuating threats/bullets suggested witness tampering and warranted mistrial under articles 770/771 | Not preserved for review (no contemporaneous objection). Alternatively, court did not abuse discretion; remark within permissible rebuttal and not sufficiently prejudicial |
| Admission of other-crimes evidence (baggies with untested residue and ammunition) | State: items seized during valid search; admissible as res gestae and probative to credibility and intent | Paul: photographs/testimony about residue and ammunition improperly suggested other crimes and prejudiced jury | No abuse of discretion — ammunition admissible as res gestae; residue testimony not fatal because officers were instructed to describe it as green vegetable matter, defendant didn’t request admonition, and any error would be harmless given sufficiency of other evidence |
| Errors patent / ministerial corrections to record | State: minute entry and commitment order mistakenly list "distribution" rather than "possession with intent to distribute" | Paul: (benefit of correct record) | Remanded for correction of minute entries and Uniform Commitment Order to reflect proper conviction (transcript controls) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992) (factors for inferring intent to distribute)
- State v. Major, 888 So.2d 798 (La. 2004) (constructive possession requires control/dominion and guilty knowledge)
- State v. Toups, 833 So.2d 910 (La. 2002) (factors bearing on constructive possession)
- State v. Greenup, 123 So.3d 768 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (scope of permissible closing argument and reversal standards)