State v. Waterhouse
171 So. 3d 1113
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Devin Waterhouse was indicted for second-degree murder after Kiran Harris was shot and later died; shooting occurred when Harris and Waterhouse saw Bryan Deval drive by and Harris fired at Deval's vehicle.
- State alleges Waterhouse also fired at Deval’s vehicle and accidentally hit Harris; jailhouse recording attributed to “Devin” contains an admission of an accidental shooting; ballistics recovered .40 cal and 9 mm casings, but the 9 mm recovered later from Waterhouse did not match the murder weapon.
- State moved in limine to admit photographs and other evidence of gang affiliation (Prieur/PCB) and prior acts by Harris or PCB members to show motive, intent, and identity under La. C.E. art. 404(B).
- Trial court denied admission, ruling the State’s 404(B) notice was untimely under a local pretrial rule, and questioned whether gang-evidence was admissible without showing rival gang involvement.
- Appellate court granted writ, held the State’s 404(B) notice was timely under the “reasonable notice” standard, found the trial court abused its discretion in excluding both the gang-affiliation evidence (without a Prieur hearing) and the victim’s prior acts (as potentially relevant under La. C.E. art. 401).
- Court vacated and remanded for a Prieur hearing to allow the State to meet its burden under La. C.E. art. 404(B) and Prieur; ordered evaluation of prejudice under La. C.Cr.P. art. 403 if evidence is found admissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 404(B) notice | State: notice filed ~2 months before last trial date satisfied "reasonable notice"; local rule should not override Prieur requirement | Waterhouse: State’s notice was untimely under Section L local rule requiring filing within 20 days of arraignment | Court: State's notice was timely under Prieur/La. C.E. art. 404(B); local rule cannot conflict with statute/Prieur; exclusion for untimeliness was abuse of discretion |
| Admissibility of gang-affiliation evidence to prove identity/motive/intent | State: photographs and gang evidence probative to show Waterhouse was a shooter, was the “Devin” on recording, and had motive to aid a fellow PCB member | Waterhouse: no adequate Prieur showing that Waterhouse committed the prior acts or that evidence is relevant; trial court cited lack of rival-gang nexus | Court: Evidence may be admissible if State meets Prieur/La. C.E. art. 404(B) burden; remand for hearing to allow State to prove relevance and defendant’s participation |
| Admissibility of victim’s prior acts (shooting at Deval) | State: prior acts by Harris and PCB members show motive/intent for both Harris and Waterhouse to shoot at Deval’s vehicle; relevant under La. C.E. art. 401 | Waterhouse: prior acts not Prieur evidence (not defendant’s acts) and trial court excluded them | Court: Trial court abused discretion by summarily excluding this evidence; prior acts (by victim) may be relevant under La. C.E. art. 401 and should be considered at hearing |
| Need for remand/hearing | State: should be allowed opportunity to satisfy Prieur and La. C.E. art. 404(B) requirements | Waterhouse: evidence should remain excluded without adequate pretrial showing | Court: Granted writ, vacated ruling, remanded for Prieur hearing and for trial judge to assess prejudice under La. C.Cr.P. art. 403 if admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Garcia, 108 So.3d 11 (La. 2012) (Prieur/other-crimes admissibility framework and appellate review standard)
- State v. Lee, 976 So.2d 109 (La. 2008) (notice and Prieur hearing requirements)
- State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La. 1973) (mandates pretrial particularized notice of other acts evidence)
- State v. Goza, 408 So.2d 1349 (La. 1982) ("reasonable time before trial" notice requirement under Prieur)
- State v. Sumlin, 25 So.3d 931 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (gang-affiliation evidence admissible to show motive between rival gangs)
- State v. Brown, 965 So.2d 580 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (gang evidence admissible to show motive)
- State v. Williams, 833 So.2d 497 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (upholding gang evidence for motive)
- State v. Weatherspoon, 948 So.2d 215 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (gang affiliation admissible to show motive even without evidence victim’s rival affiliation)
- State v. Smith, 34 So.3d 386 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (ideology/gang affiliation used to prove motive for violent acts)
- State v. Barnes, 685 So.2d 1148 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (holding gang evidence not admissible under Prieur in an armed-robbery context)