State v. Rubens, 83 So. 3d 30

Defendant Peter Rubens was indicted for second degree murder of Robert Irwin and convicted by a jury in August 2009; he was sentenced to life without parole.
The killing occurred at 5036 South Prieur Street, New Orleans, during preparations for Rubens’ planned Iowa job; Irwin was Rubens’ employee but not part of the Iowa trip.
Rubens allegedly fled the scene, returned via a ladder, and was found in an attic; he initially spoke to police and later invoked counsel during interrogation.
State evidence showed multiple gunshots fired in a Manning residence office; four .380 casings and a bullet were recovered, with no pencil or weapon recovered.
The State introduced voicemail messages Rubens left for Corners Vergara and Angela Mitchell as potential evidence of motive; defense challenges were litigated over admissibility under 404(B).
Defense raised various trial-management issues, including the right to be present at in-chambers conferences, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and the admissibility of other-bad-acts evidence; all were resolved with mixed rulings, and the convictions and sentence were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of self-defense evidence	Rubens argues the State did not prove non-self-defense beyond reasonable doubt.	State failed to disprove self-defense; Irwin attacked first with a pencil.	No; the State showed Rubens did not reasonably believe imminent danger.
Admissibility of voicemails under 404(B)	Voicemails show motive/intent and are probative.	Evidence unduly prejudicial and not independent of propensity.	Admissible as motive/intent; not unduly prejudicial; serveral hearings occurred before admission.
Non-unanimous jury verdict challenge	Constitutional validity of 10-of-12 verdict upheld by jurisprudence.	Non-unanimous verdict violates due process.	Procedurally barred; Article 782(A) constitutional; no due process violation.
Right to present defense regarding Diana Hoover	Defense’s ability to compel witness Hoover and offset intimidation concerns.	Prosecutorial interference denied defense; denied opportunity to call Hoover.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; no reversal for denial of hearing or witness.

State v. Huckabay, 809 So.2d 1111 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2002) (sufficiency review for circumstantial evidence and Jackson standard)
State v. Taylor, 875 So.2d 58 (La. 2004) (State bears burden to negate self-defense beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Sartain, 2 So.3d 1132 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2008) (self-defense sufficiency and evidentiary standards)
State v. Collins, 62 So.3d 268 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2011) (procedural bar when no objection to jury instruction; standing concerns)
State v. Bertrand, 6 So.3d 738 (La. 2009) (non-unanimous jury verdict constitutional; Article 782 valid)
Toledano, 391 So.2d 817 (La.1980) (juvenile records; balancing impeachment value vs. confidentiality)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecutorial duty to correct false testimony; materiality standard)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality and reasonable probability standard for Brady)