STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ISAAC FIELDS
NO. 2020-K-0086
COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
APRIL 15, 2020
JUDGE SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS
APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 539-714, SECTION “C” Honorable Benedict J. Willard, Judge
(Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins)
Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., District Attorney
Donna Andrieu, Assistant District Attorney
Kyle Daly, Assistant District Attorney
ORLEANS PARISH
619 S. White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR RELATOR/STATE OF LOUISIANA
Nandi F. Campbell
Sarah Chervinsky
NFC Law, LLC
1820 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 212
New Orleans, LA 70130
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; RULING AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS
SCJ
JFM
DLD
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2018, the defendant was charged, in a four-count indictment, with first degree rape and aggravated kidnapping of a victim on September 19, 1999, and first degree rape and aggravated kidnapping of a second victim on January 6, 2001. The relevant facts contained in the police reports of these crimes are as follows:
September 19, 1999: At approximately 11:30p.m., the female victim exited a streetcar and was walking home when an unknown black male approached her, pulled a firearm from his waistband, covered his face with his shirt, and demanded the victim‘s money. After relinquishing her belongings, the attacker, later identified as the defendant, forced the victim at gunpoint into an alley in the 8000 block of Willow Street, forced her to take off her pants, and attempted penile/anal penetration before vaginally penetrating the victim against her will, until he ejaculated. The defendant then fled the scene and the victim called the police. In 2017, CODIS matched the defendant‘s DNA to the victim‘s rape kit.
January 6, 2001: At approximately 11:30p.m., the female victim was attempting to collect stray cats in the 4000 block of Ulloa Street, when an unknown black male approached her as she attempted to get into her vehicle. The attacker, later identified as the defendant, grabbed her from behind and told her not to turn around and that he had a gun. The defendant forcibly took the victim into an alley between two houses, removed her pants, forced her to the ground, and anally penetrated her until he ejaculated. The defendant then fled the scene and the victim drove home and called the police. In 2017, CODIS matched the defendant‘s DNA to the victim‘s rape kit.
In proceeding with this case, on October 28, 2019, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce evidence of several prior crimes, pursuant to
The State seeks to introduce prior crimes evidence of three armed robberies that occurred in 1997. Defendant was charged under one bill of information with three counts of armed robbery; subsequently, the State dismissed two counts and a jury returned a not guilty verdict on the third count. The relevant facts of these prior charges of armed robbery are as follows:
February 12, 1997: At approximately 6:30p.m., two female victims were walking in the 1900 block of Napoleon Ave. when an unknown black male approached from behind them and demanded the women‘s
money and property. When one of the victims attempted to turn around, the robber, later identified by one victim in a physical lineup as the defendant, told them not to turn around or he would shoot them. The defendant also demanded the rings that
June 27, 1997: At approximately 12:30p.m., a female victim was unloading groceries at her residence in the 1800 block of Milan Street, when an unknown black male approached her, pointed a gun at her throat, and demanded her rings. The victim complied with the demands and the perpetrator fled on foot. On October 21, 1997, the victim viewed a 6-person physical lineup and positively identified the defendant as the robber.
October 1, 1997: At approximately 8:00p.m., a female victim was returning home from the grocery store and entering her residence in the 2200 block of St. Charles Avenue, when a black male approached her, pointed a handgun at her, and demanded her rings. When she resisted, the perpetrator hit her in the face with the gun, forcibly removed her rings, and fled on foot. On October 10, 1997, New Orleans Police officers arrested the defendant in connection with a string of robberies in the Uptown neighborhood. On that same date, the victim contacted the police, stated that she saw a photo of the defendant on the local news broadcast, and she identified him as her robber.
The State argued to the district court that the evidence of these prior crimes is admissible under
After presenting their arguments, the district court denied admission of the three prior armed robberies, noting that those charges ended either in dismissal or acquittal. The district court also stated, “[i]f you provide me evidence of a dismissal or failure to prosecute it will not be allowed.”
The State timely noticed its intent to seek supervisory review of the district court‘s ruling.
DISCUSSION
A district court‘s ruling on the admissibility of other crimes evidence will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Taylor, 16-1124, p. 18 (La. 12/1/16), 217 So.3d 283, 296.
The introduction of other crimes evidence is governed by
Except as provided in Article 412, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, of the nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial for such purposes, or when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding.
state cannot simply rely on a boilerplate recitation” from
In ruling on the admissibility of the other crimes evidence, the district court must determine the independent relevancy of that evidence to the charges against the defendant. “The district court must also balance the probative value of the other crimes, wrongs, or acts evidence against its prejudicial effects before the evidence can be admitted.” Taylor, 16-1124, p. 12, 217 So.3d at 292; citing State v. Henderson, 12-2422 (La. 1/4/13), 107 So.3d 566, 567-68.
In the present case, the district court denied the admission of the evidence of the three prior robberies because the charges against the defendant in that case resulted in either dismissal or acquittal. However, as held by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Cotton, 00-0850, p. 11 (La. 1/29/01), 778 So.2d 569, 578, “the fact of a prior acquittal does not automatically prevent the State from introducing in a subsequent trial, under [La. C.E. art.] 404(B), evidence of a defendant‘s prior acts for which he was acquitted if the required standard of proof of the prior act is less than that required for conviction.” The Court then clarified, in Taylor, the State‘s burden of proof for admissibility of other crimes evidence holding that the State “need only make a showing of sufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the other crime, wrong, or act.” Taylor, 16-1124, p. 10, 217 So.3d at 291. In accordance with this jurisprudence, we find that the district court legally erred in denying the admission of the prior crimes evidence based solely on dismissal or acquittal of the charges.
However, upon review of the evidence offered by the State, we find the State has failed to establish a substantial relevance independent from showing defendant‘s general criminal character, as required by
prior crimes evidence that the State seeks to admit are notably dissimilar to the charged crimes and, unlike the charged crimes, there is no physical evidence linking the defendant to those other crimes. Notably, none of the prior crimes involve allegations of sexual abuse or kidnapping. In addition, the prior crimes were linked by the police to a string of robberies that took place in 1997, in a particular area of the Uptown neighborhood; but, the charged crimes took place two or more years later, in two different neighborhoods, both miles apart from the prior crimes. Finally, in consideration that the current charged crimes rely on DNA evidence, but the prior crimes relied solely on eyewitness accounts, we find that the probative value of the prior crimes evidence is substantially outweighed by its potential prejudicial effect. See
Thus, while we find that the district court erred in denying admission of the prior crimes evidence of the three robberies because of the dismissal or acquittal of those charges, based upon our review of the evidence of those prior crimes, we find that the evidence is still not admissible under
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we grant the State‘s writ, but we deny the relief sought.
WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; RULING AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS