State v. Warner
116 So. 3d 811
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Jimmie Warner was indicted for the second-degree murder of Walter Jovel; the jury convicted him of negligent homicide and he received a five-year sentence.
- Warner appeals on two assignments: admission of an out-of-court statement by a witness who refused to answer questions, and admission of certain character evidence.
- Witness Nadia Stark invoked the Fifth Amendment; the court compelled her testimony and later admitted her recorded statement under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine (804(B)(7)).
- Witness Laverne King testified for the defense; on cross-examination the State elicited evidence of Warner’s prior arrests, which Warner challenges as improper character evidence under 405(A).
- The appellate court affirmed both the admissibility rulings and denied relief, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stark's recorded statement violated the Confrontation Clause | Warner argues the statement is testimonial and its admission without cross-examination violated confrontation. | Stark’s unavailability was caused by Warner’s actions; forfeiture by wrongdoing permits admission absent cross-examination. | Admissible under forfeiture by wrongdoing; no reversible confrontation violation. |
| Whether King’s cross-examination about arrests violated 405(A) | Cross-examination of King on arrests is improper character evidence. | Questions about arrests were proper impeachment given defense opened the door to Warner’s character. | No error; questions properly admitted under 405(A). |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay requires confrontation)
- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1878) (forfeiture doctrine premised on wrongdoing)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (limits forfeiture by wrongdoing to intended witness unavailability)
- State v. Robinson, 33 So.3d 1019 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010) (cross-examination allowed on relevant specific acts)
- State v. Hurst, 828 So.2d 1165 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2002) (impeachment for prior arrests proper under 405)
- State v. Jackson, 880 So.2d 841 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2004) (confrontation concerns in appellate review)