136 So. 3d 98
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant NaKeith Sparkman was indicted for second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and possession of a firearm by a felon after he entered an apartment and shot Ranard “Deuce” Brown (who died) and Craig Smith (wounded).
- At trial State witnesses (Smith, Shartina Norman) identified Sparkman as the shooter; Sparkman gave statements admitting he shot both victims but claimed self-defense; no firearms were recovered in the apartment.
- A jailhouse inmate (Timothy Guillot) testified that Sparkman admitted the shootings and taking marijuana; ballistic and forensic testimony tied the casings and projectiles to one weapon and linked a recovered projectile to the fatal wound.
- The jury convicted Sparkman on all counts; trial judge initially sentenced on all counts but orally stated he would “strike Count 3” (aggravated burglary) when reconsidering sentence.
- On appeal Sparkman challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence and self-defense, (2) denial of a mistrial after a witness mentioned passing a polygraph, (3) partial courtroom closure violating the public-trial right, and (4) prosecutorial nondisclosure/Napue-related claims about the polygraph; the court also reviewed for errors patent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder/attempted murder/aggravated burglary/ felon-in-possession | State: eyewitness IDs, defendant admissions, forensic/ballistics, and lack of weapons supported convictions | Sparkman: evidence insufficient; acted in self-defense; witness inconsistencies | Convictions affirmed; evidence sufficient and jury properly rejected self-defense claim |
| Self-defense burden and resolution | State: must negate self-defense beyond reasonable doubt in homicide | Sparkman: he acted in self-defense (victim drew a gun; was assaulted) | Court found State negated self-defense beyond reasonable doubt for Brown; defendant failed to prove self-defense for Smith |
| Mistrial after witness referenced passing a polygraph | State: remark was improper but harmless given overwhelming evidence and corroboration | Sparkman: reference to polygraph improperly bolstered witness credibility; warranted mistrial/new trial | Denial of mistrial affirmed; reference improper but no reasonable possibility it affected verdict |
| Public-trial claim for partial courtroom closure | State: closure for public safety; defendants acquiesced to limited spectators | Sparkman: closure violated right to public trial and judge failed to accommodate attendance | Claim not preserved (no contemporaneous objection); no relief granted |
| Brady/Napue challenge re: polygraph materials | State: polygraph results are inadmissible; defendant failed to raise at trial and admits materials were disclosed | Sparkman: prosecution suppressed polygraph questions/results and allowed false testimony | Claims not preserved; court found disclosed and/or inconsistencies were presented at trial, so no Brady/Napue relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor duty to disclose materially favorable evidence)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecution must correct known false testimony)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (materiality standard for false testimony/impeachment)
- State v. Legrand, 864 So.2d 89 (La. 2004) (polygraph evidence inadmissible and references prohibited)
- State v. Weatherspoon, 948 So.2d 215 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2006) (polygraph reference harmless when corroborating evidence overwhelms)
- State v. Hoffman, 768 So.2d 542 (La. 2000) (specific intent to kill may be inferred from pointing and firing a gun)