State v. Smith

325 So.3d 509

STATE of Louisiana

v.Alcus A. SMITH a.k.a. "Bug" a.k.a. "Bull"

NO. 20-KA-177

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

June 02, 2021

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr., Metairie, Thomas J. Butler, Gail D. Schlosser, Harahan, Douglas W. Freese, Gretna, Seth W. Shute

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, ALCUS A. SMITH A.K.A. "BUG" A.K.A. "BULL", Jane L. Beebe

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Robert A. Chaisson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

MOLAISON, J.

This case returns before us following a remand to the district court.¹ In our previous opinion, we determined that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the defendant's conviction for second-degree murder, but pretermitted reviewing the defendant's second assignment of error regarding other crimes evidence pending the district court's determination of whether the jury verdict, in this case, was unanimous. Upon remand, after a hearing on May 20, 2021, the district court issued a per curiam which concluded that the jury verdict was, in fact, unanimous. Based upon that finding, we now turn to the defendant's remaining assignment of error. For the following reasons, the defendant's conviction is affirmed.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The trial court erred in granting the state's motion to introduce evidence of other crimes that were more prejudicial than probative.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in granting the State's motion to introduce other crimes evidence of a multi-year federal investigation into the Harvey Hustlers gang. He contends, in summary, that he was "tangentially associated with" the drug-dealing enterprise and that any evidence from that separate investigation was extremely prejudicial and used only to portray him as a "bad person" who killed Mr. Hall.

The State filed a Notice of Intent to Use Evidence of Other Crimes on June 7, 2017, according to La. C.E. art. 404(B), about the defendant's prior convictions for racketeering, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. At the subsequent hearing on the motion, the State argued that the convictions offered a context for the defendant's conduct as a "long-term major drug dealer" who dealt "violently with real or perceived ‘slights’ from others." The State further argued that the prior convictions showed both specific intent and motive for the current offense, and asserted that the murder of Mr. Hall was in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise and the conspiracy to distribute narcotics. Specifically, the State asserted that the defendant's participation in the Harvey Hustlers was relevant to show his motive to protect his reputation and the preservation of his drug trafficking business.

Generally, evidence of other crimes or bad acts committed by a criminal defendant is not admissible at trial. La. C.E. art. 404(B)(1) ; State v. Prieur , 277 So.2d 126, 128 (La. 1973). However, when evidence of other crimes tends to prove a material issue and has independent relevance other than to show that the defendant is of bad character, it may be admitted by certain statutory and jurisprudential exceptions to this rule. State v. Williams , 10-51 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/27/10), 47 So.3d 467, 474, writ denied , 10-2083 (La. 2/18/11), 57 So.3d 330. Evidence of other crimes is admissible to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding to such an extent that the State could not accurately present its case without reference to the prior bad acts. La. C.E. art. 404(B)(1) ; State v. Lawson , 08-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/12/08), 1 So.3d 516, 525. State v. Charles , 00-1586 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/27/01), 790 So.2d 705, 708. A close connection between the charged and uncharged conduct is required to ensure that "the purpose served by admission of the other crimes evidence is not to depict the defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place." Id .

The defendant bears the burden to show that he was prejudiced by the admission of the other crimes evidence. State v. Miller , 10-718 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/28/11), 83 So.3d 178, 187, writ denied , 12-282 (La. 5/18/12), 89 So.3d 1191, cert. denied , 568 U.S. 1157, 133 S.Ct. 1238, 185 L.Ed.2d 177 (2013). Even if the other crimes evidence was inadmissible, the erroneous admission of other crimes evidence is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis on appeal. State v. Johnson , 94-1379 (La. 11/27/95), 664 So.2d 94, 102. The test for determining whether an error is harmless is whether the verdict rendered in the case "was surely unattributable to the error." Id . at 100.

As discussed in our prior opinion, there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant:

Upon review, we find that the State presented sufficient evidence to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification of the defendant. Mr. Carter testified that he was inside the vehicle and observed the defendant and the other two individuals shoot and kill Mr. Hall. Ballistic evidence confirmed that three weapons were used at the scene. Mya testified that she observed Mr. Hall get into the vehicle with the defendant shortly before the murder. Mr. Carter testified that the defendant wanted to retaliate against Mr. Hall. The surveillance video showed a dark-colored vehicle and a light-colored vehicle, which matched the descriptions of the vehicles of the defendant and the other two individuals, pull into the neighborhood and then leave shortly after the murder. Phone records confirmed pertinent conversations between Mr. Hall and Mr. Bird and between the defendant and Mr. Carter shortly before the murder. Additionally, the evidence showed that the defendant had the specific intent to kill when he and the other individuals pointed their guns and fired them at Mr. Hall, thereby causing Mr. Hall to sustain nine gunshot wounds and killing him.

We also noted in our prior opinion the evidence which illustrated that the defendant's motive for killing Mr. Hall was the belief that Mr. Hall had set him up to be robbed during a drug deal.² To that end, evidence of the defendant's...