State v. Thompson
Decision Date | 18 September 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 2015–K–0886,2015–K–0886 |
Citation | 233 So.3d 529 |
Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Leslie C. THOMPSON |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Louis Granderson Scott, for Applicant.
JACKSON PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Hon. Daniel W. Newell, District Attorney, Darell Robert Avery ; TERESA CULPEPPER CAROLL, PLLC, Teresa Culpepper Caroll, for Respondent.
We granted certiorari in this case primarily to consider defendant's contentions that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions on three counts of malfeasance in office, (2) the district court erred by permitting the state to introduce unduly prejudicial "other bad acts" evidence under La. C.E. art. 404(B) and the court of appeal compounded that error by applying a faulty "harmless error" analysis in assessing the effect of the erroneous admissions, and (3) the district court erred in denying his motion for a mandatory mistrial under La. C.Cr.P. art. 770 due to the prosecutor's references to race.
After reviewing the evidence in this case from the perspective of a rational trier of fact who interprets that evidence as favorably to the prosecution as any rational trier of fact could, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to Count I of the malfeasance in office charge; however, as to Counts II and III, we find that no rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Pretermitting all other assignments of error, we additionally find that the district court erred in denying defendant's motion for a mandatory mistrial after the prosecutor directly referenced race in a comment before the jury that was neither material nor relevant and that could create prejudice against defendant in the minds of the jury members. Accordingly, we vacate defendant's convictions and sentences, and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Defendant Leslie C. Thompson assumed the office of mayor of the town of Jonesboro on January 1, 2007. On March 5, 2013, during his second term of office, the state filed a bill of information charging defendant, as a principal, with three counts of malfeasance in office in violation of La. R.S. 14:134 ("Malfeasance in office"), La. R.S. 14:24 ("Principals"), and La. R.S. 33:404 ("Duties of mayor"). Specifically, the bill of information alleged that Mayor Thompson:
Following the institution of prosecution, numerous pre-trial motions were filed,1 including among them, a notice filed by the state seeking to introduce other crimes, wrongs, or acts pursuant to La. C.E. art. 404(B). A contradictory hearing on the Article 404(B) notice was held, at which the state presented the testimony of several witnesses in an attempt to establish the admissibility of 11 "other bad acts" allegedly committed by defendant. At the conclusion of that hearing, the district court determined that the probative value of the "bad acts" evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect and, therefore, allowed each act alleged in the Article 404(B) notice to be introduced into evidence.
The case then proceeded to trial, with jury selection beginning on August 26, 2013, followed by testimony commencing on August 29, 2013. During the examination of one of the state's initial witnesses, the prosecutor made a reference to race in the presence of the jury, stating that "there's been an allegation made ... [that] the Mayor has been harried by various conservatives and or white people." Defendant objected and moved for a mistrial on grounds the prosecutor was injecting race into the proceedings. The district court overruled the objection and denied the motion for mistrial, reasoning that the defense had alluded to race during voir dire and the opening statement and, thus, the state was entitled to rebut the racial implications.
Defendant subsequently filed a written motion for mistrial alleging that racial issues had clearly become a factor in the trial. Defendant pointed out that both parties had questioned potential jurors regarding racial fairness during voir dire and several members of the venire had expressed concern that any verdict (guilty or not guilty) would divide the community further. Defendant also argued that the prosecutor's reference to "white people" in the presence of the jury was a mandatory, and not a permissive, ground for a mistrial under La. C.Cr.P. art. 770. The district court denied defendant's motion after hearing argument from the parties. Defendant then sought writs on the ruling, which the court of appeal denied, finding no palpable error in the ruling and that defendant had an adequate remedy on appeal. State v. Thompson , 48,848 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/11/13) (unpub'd).
Testimony continued and finally concluded on September 10, 2013. At the close of deliberations, the jury unanimously found defendant guilty as charged of all three counts of malfeasance in office. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, the district court sentenced defendant as follows. As to Counts I and II, defendant was sentenced to serve consecutive terms of three years at hard labor, with $1,000 fines imposed as to each count. As to Count III, the court sentenced defendant to five years at hard labor, with all five years suspended, said sentence to run concurrently with his sentences for Counts I and II, plus a $1,000 fine and court costs. The court additionally ordered that defendant be placed under supervised probation for a period of five years following his release from incarceration. Finally, the court ordered that defendant pay restitution of the town of Jonesboro in the amount of $51,792.81, which represents the aggregate of the amounts identified in Counts II and III.
Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences. In a thorough (and lengthy) opinion, the court of appeal affirmed defendant's convictions, but vacated his sentences and remanded for re-sentencing. State v. Thompson , 49,483, p. 92 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/18/15), 163 So.3d 139, 192.
Addressing the sufficiency of the evidence first, the court of appeal concluded that the state's evidence was sufficient to prove all three counts of malfeasance in office beyond a reasonable doubt. With respect to Count I, which charged that defendant committed malfeasance by failing and/or refusing to maintain proper records and to supply them to the Louisiana Legislative Auditor, the court of appeal found the evidence sufficient because it demonstrated the town's financial records were so incomplete and disorganized that auditors issued disclaimers for five...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Anthony
-
State v. Chester
...182 (1993), which asks whether the guilty verdict rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error. State v. Thompson , 15-886 (La. 9/18/17), 233 So.3d 529, 561.22 Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012).23 Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577 U.S. 190......
-
State v. Guidry
...Defendant's trial counsel did not enroll until June 20, 2016.8 The defendant argues that the recent case of State v. Thompson, 2015-0886 (La. 9/18/17), 233 So.3d 529, 559-61, adopted the per se rule in affirming a mistrial under Article 770. However, the supreme court distinguished subsecti......
-
State v. Anthony
...182 (1993), which asks whether the guilty verdict rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error. State v. Thompson , 15-886 (La. 9/18/17), 233 So.3d 529, 561. However, there are exceptions to the harmless error rule because some constitutional rights are so basic to a fair t......
-
Confronting Racist Prosecutorial Rhetoric at Trial.
...if these were not successful, for the granting of a mistrial"). (472.) Lyon, supra note 15, at 334. (473.) See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 233 So. 3d 529, 563 (La. (474.) See Lyon, supra note 15, at 333 (arguing that the court should hold an immediate hearing without the jury present to deter......