State v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 18 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2015–KK–1810.,2015–KK–1810. |
| Citation | 209 So.3d 750 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Jake HAMILTON. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
209 So.3d 750
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Jake HAMILTON.
No. 2015–KK–1810.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jan. 18, 2016.
PER CURIAM.
Writ granted in part. The district court's reasons for judgment suggest the court erroneously believed that only prior crimes which demonstrate modus operandi are admissible. Whatever the court's reasons, however, La. C.E. art. 404(B) governs the admissibility of other crimes evidence.
The state filed a Prieur notice1 of intent to introduce evidence of two prior instances of defendant's guilty pleas to attempted possession of a firearm: once with a revolver and once with an assault rifle. The state seeks to use evidence of these prior crimes in aid of its prosecution for the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1, and for the charge of aggravated assault with a firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:37.4. The state's Prieur notice indicates its intent to use the convictions to aid the state in proving the defendant's "intent to possess a firearm, his knowledge of the legal disability created by his predicate felony conviction for possession of cocaine, and the absence of any mistake or accident as to such disability."
The district court ruled the state could use the prior handgun crime in prosecuting the charge of felon in possession of a firearm. However, the district court excluded the prior assault rifle crime for prosecuting the charge of felon in possession of a firearm. For the prosecution of aggravated assault with a firearm, the district court excluded both the prior assault rifle and handgun crimes.
For the present charge of possession of a firearm by a felon, the state's intended reasons for using the prior assault rifle crime are consistent with La. C.E. art. 404(B), inasmuch as that section allows use of other crimes evidence to show "intent," "knowledge," and "absence of mistake or accident." Under the unique facts of this case, in which no firearm was found on the defendant at the time of his arrest, each of these purposes is presumably an issue for trial. See, e.g., State v. Roman, 00–1705, p. 5 (La.12/07/01), 802 So.2d 1281, 1284 (indicating that when the defendant was charged with violating La. R.S. 14:95.1, but was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Breedlove, 51,055–KA
...walking out the door), are admissible under La. C.E. art. 404(B) to show intent, motive or absence of mistake. In State v. Hamilton , 15–1810 (La. 1/18/16), 209 So.3d 750, the court found a prior charge of aggravated assault with a handgun was admissible as "other crimes" evidence where def......
-
State v. Gatson
...frequently claimed she did not remember when she was questioned about prior abuse. Citing State v. Hamilton , 15-1810 (La. 1/18/16), 209 So.3d 750, 751,4 the State insists that the prior acts were independently relevant because the gun was hidden in a closet rather than on Defendant's perso......
-
State v. Gatson
...frequently claimed she did not remember when she was questioned about prior abuse. Citing State v. Hamilton, 15-1810 (La. 1/18/16); 209 So.3d 750, 751, [4] the State insists that the prior acts were independently relevant because the gun was hidden in a closet rather than on Defendant's per......
-
State v. Gatson
...frequently claimed she did not remember when she was questioned about prior abuse. Citing State v. Hamilton, 15-1810 (La. 1/18/16); 209 So.3d 750, 751, [4] the State insists that the prior acts were independently relevant because the gun was hidden in a closet rather than on Defendant's per......