170 So. 3d 394
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Lamondre Tucker (defendant in a separate capital murder trial) and his mother Alicia Tucker were indicted and convicted for conspiracy to commit jury tampering after Lamondre used a three-way phone call to contact prospective juror Latisha Griffin during capital voir dire; Alicia connected an intermediary (Sh’Taraus Hall) and remained on the calls and sent follow-up texts.
- Recording and transcript of the March 17, 2011 phone call were admitted at trial; witnesses (Griffin, Hall, court staff, deputies) testified Griffin changed her death-penalty stance after the call and was thereafter fearful.
- Both defendants argued insufficiency of the evidence: they claimed Griffin was only a prospective juror (not a “juror”), lacked intent to influence, and (Alicia) lacked agreement or action in furtherance of a conspiracy.
- Defendants raised numerous trial error claims (hearsay/co‑conspirator statements, subpoena denials for prosecutors/defense counsel and jury records, juror challenges, jury‑instruction requests including contempt as alternative verdict, and sentencing excessiveness for Alicia).
- The trial court convicted Lamondre (jury unanimous) and Alicia (11–1); Lamondre received 30 years hard labor, Alicia 15 years; the appellate court consolidated appeals and affirmed convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prospective juror (venire member) is a “juror” under La. R.S. 14:129 | State: statute protects any juror called for a pending or about-to-be-brought cause; protecting venire members furthers fair trials | Tucker: Griffin was only a prospective juror, not impaneled, so statute doesn’t apply | Court: "juror" includes prospective jurors summoned for duty; conviction stands |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit jury tampering | State: recorded call, actions by Alicia (connecting Hall), Griffin’s fear and altered testimony show agreement, act in furtherance, purpose to influence, and corrupt purpose/threat | Defendants: no agreement, no act in furtherance (Alicia), no intent to influence (Lamondre), no threats | Court: Evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution sufficient to prove conspiracy elements beyond reasonable doubt |
| Admissibility of Alicia’s statements (phone/text) as co-conspirator statements (La. C.E. art. 801(D)(3)(b)) | State: prima facie conspiracy established; Alicia’s calls/texts were during and in furtherance of ongoing conspiracy | Defendants: statements/texts were not in furtherance or occurred after conspiracy ended, thus hearsay | Court: prima facie case satisfied; calls/texts were in furtherance (including concealment) and admissible; any error would be harmless |
| Denial of subpoenas for prosecutors/defense counsel, expert testimony, and full voir dire transcript | Defendants: witnesses and transcripts were essential to defense showing intent and impeachment | State/Trial court: testimony privileged, cumulative, irrelevant to defendant’s mens rea, and/or could be obtained by other means; foundation for impeachment insufficient | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion—privilege, relevance, and foundation grounds justify denial; transcript exclusions harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (Sup. Ct.) (right to jury from representative cross-section)
- United States v. Jackson, 607 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir.) (venireman within scope of jury‑tampering statute)
- Nobles v. State, 769 So.2d 1063 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (prospective juror counts under jury‑tampering statute)
- State v. Lobato, 608 So.2d 739 (La. 1992) (prima facie conspiracies; use of co‑conspirator statements)
- United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138 (U.S.) (statutory reach to venireman in jury‑tampering context)