Late one evening, a man entered the home of his ex-wife and brutally stabbed his ex-wife's fiancé. The man is discovered committing this crime by his sixteen-year-old stepdaughter, who ran to the room after hearing screams. The stepdaughter turned on the bedroom light and witnessed her stepfather stabbing her mother's fiancé in the stomach. After pulling her stepfather off of the struggling victim, the girl called for help and attended to the victim who had been stabbed fifteen times.

The victim made a positive identification in the hospital and, after his release, was able to identify the defendant is a photo identification.

During the trial, the State relied on testimony provided by the defendant's stepdaughter to prove that defendant was the attacker. The jury heard the taped emergency-assistance call where the defendant was once again identified. The defendant took the stand, denying all charges, and relied upon the fact that he was at his mother's home, sleeping, as an alibi. His mother corroborated that defense.

On cross examination, the defendant admitted to having several prior misdemeanor convictions and acknowledged pleading guilty to on count of simple burglary. He denied any other convictions for burglary, however. After the denial, the State introduced documentary evidence that the defendant had been charged with six counts of simple burglary and that he pled guilty to five of those counts. The evidence was admitted and defense counsel did not object. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court determined that the prejudicial impact of the evidence outweighed its probative value. The State filed an emergency writ which reversed the trial court's ruling. The defendant was convicted of attempted second degree murder and aggravated burglary. Ultimately, it was determined that the evidence was inadmissible other crimes evidence in violation of Louisiana law.

Should a harmless error analysis be considered to evaluate a conviction where inadmissible other crimes evidence was disclosed to the jury?

If so, is this a trial error or a structural error?

Is the error harmless?

If the evidence had been excluded, what is the probability that the jury would have found the defendant guilty?

Answer

erroneous admission of other crimes evidence. We find this type of error to be a "trial error" under the standards enunciated in Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991), as acknowledged by this Court in State v. Cage, 583 So.2d 1125 (La.1991), cert. denied, > 502 U.S. 874 (1991). Louisiana courts must evaluate the prejudicial effect of such errors under the harmless error principles established in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) and Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993).   SO this was trial error.

Harmless analysis: Would it have made a difference in the verdict?

See State of Louisiana v. Silas Johnson, 664 So.2d 94 (La. 1995). See also, Edwards, Harry T. To Err Is Human, But Not Always Harmless: When Should Legal Error Be Tolerated? 70 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1167 (1995).

Betty Justin

Emory Law