163 So. 3d 139
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Thompson, mayor of Jonesboro, was convicted on three counts of malfeasance in office and sentenced to multiple terms of incarceration and fines, with restitution totaling $51,792.81 and five years of supervised probation on Count III; Counts I and II were ordered to run consecutively, but the court later vacated sentences and remanded for resentencing.
- Audits and investigations by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor (LLA) disclosed pervasive deficiencies: missing records, disorganized accounting, unmatched balances, unfiled/audits late, and improper benefits and payments to ineligible employees; five consecutive years of disclaimer opinions by CPAs, leading to a compliance/investigative audit and a March 2013 investigative audit.
- A March 15, 2013 404(B) notice alleged additional acts during Thompson’s tenure (utility collections, tax sales, extended terms for unpaid balances, land transactions, inauguration expenses, and other deficiencies), which the trial court admitted as evidence at trial.
- Pretrial and trial maneuvers included motions to quash (asserting statute of limitations and constitutional issues), a motion to recuse Judge Teat (denied), security measures (metal detectors), a Batson challenge (denied), and a motion to change venue (denied); Thompson was convicted on September 11, 2013, and sentenced on October 17, 2013, after which he sought post-conviction relief and expedited writs.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing, finding issues with concurrent versus consecutive sentencing and with the 404(B) evidence framework, while addressing multiple other assigned errors including prosecutorial conduct and recusal rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional sufficiency of evidence for malfeasance | Thompson | Thompson | Sufficient evidence; convictions affirmed |
| Consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing | State | Thompson | Counts I and II should be served concurrently with each other; overall framework requires remand for proper sentencing; not all counts may be served consecutively |
| admissibility and impact of 404(B) evidence | State | Thompson | Harmless error overall; some 404(B) items should not have been admitted but did not contaminate verdict |
| Prosecutorial conduct and mistrial arguments on race | State | Thompson | Harmless error; no reversal required given overwhelming evidence and lack of substantial prejudice |
| Double jeopardy/lenity and recusal/venue issues | State | Thompson | No reversible error shown; lenity not applicable; no reversible recusal/venue error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perez, 464 So.2d 737 (La. 1985) (establishes duty requirement for malfeasance prosecutions)
- State v. Passman, 391 So.2d 1140 (La. 1980) (duty must be statutorily delineated)
- State v. Petitto, 59 So.3d 1245 (La. 2011) (intent required for malfeasance; malfeasance requires deliberate breach of duty)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. Supreme Court (1986)) (three-step Batson framework for peremptory challenges)
- State v. Green, 655 So.2d 272 (La. 1995) (gives framework for evaluating Batson applicability in jury selection)
- State v. Johnson, 664 So.2d 94 (La. 1995) (harmless-error standard for trial errors when evaluating 404(B) evidence)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. Supreme Court (1967)) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors in trials)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. Supreme Court (1993)) (harmless-error review for evidentiary errors)
- State v. Bruce, 93 So.3d 717 (La. App. 2d Cir. (2012)) (admission of other crimes evidence requires relevance and balance of probative value)