Preview:

3/16/01

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 00-K-0453

STATE OF LOUISIANA Versus CHARLES O. POLAND

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, PARISH OF FRANKLIN

LEMMON, Justice During the trial in which defendant was convicted of manslaughter, the prosecutor, in his case-in-chief, introduced defendant's grand jury testimony as direct substantive evidence of his guilt. The principal issue prompting this court's grant of certiorari is whether use of a person's grand jury testimony in a subsequent criminal prosecution of that person violates the principles of grand jury secrecy contained in La. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 433 and 434, when the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right against self-incrimination in the grand jury proceeding while represented by counsel.

Facts In August 1997, defendant summoned the police to his residence, where the officer found the body of defendant's cousin lying face down on the ground. Defendant told the officer that the victim "pulled a knife on me and I had to shoot him."1 After being advised of his constitutional rights, defendant further stated, "He

The officer found a knife in the victim's left hand, with the blade turned backwards.

1

came at me with an attitude and he hit me twice with a knife and I shot him in self defense. I want a lawyer." Defendant was subsequently charged with second degree murder. The following month, defendant testified before the grand jury. Defendant was informed on the record that he was the target of the grand jury investigation; that he had the right to remain silent and to consult with his lawyer and have his lawyer present during the questioning; and that any evidence he gave could be used against him in a later proceeding. Defendant waived these rights and recounted his version of the incident. The grand jury subsequently indicted defendant for second degree murder. The prosecutor proceeded to trial on the theory that defendant and the victim argued while drinking beer and that defendant shot the victim and then placed his own knife in the victim's hand to create the appearance that defendant had acted in selfdefense. In support of this theory, the prosecutor presented testimony of law enforcement officers that they found the victim with a small brown knife in his left hand and burned cigarette paper attached to a finger of his left hand. An larger white knife was found in the victim's right front pocket. Also found near the victim were a cigarette butt, a lighter and a beer can. The pathologist found no marks on the victim's body indicative of a struggle, but observed a burn mark on his right forearm, consistent with a cigarette burn. The expert opined that the burn had occurred at or about the time of death and that the victim died within three to five minutes of the shooting. The prosecutor then sought to introduce defendant's grand jury testimony as part of the case-in-chief.2 Contending that the grand jury testimony contained internal
A transcript of defendant's testimony was provided to him during discovery pursuant to La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 716A, which specifically requires the prosecutor to provide a defendant with his or her grand jury testimony during the course of discovery. 2
2

inconsistencies, conflicted with statements made by the defendant at the scene, and was contrary to other witnesses' testimony regarding the crime scene, the prosecutor argued that the testimony contained evidence that was not available elsewhere and was necessary to prove that defendant did not act in self-defense. Over defendant's strenuous objection, the trial court allowed a tape of defendant's grand jury testimony to be played at trial. Defendant's grand jury testimony established that he and the victim had been arguing for two hours while drinking beer and that the victim knew he had a gun in his pocket. Defendant admitted that the "little old pocket knife" found in the victim's left hand after the shooting belonged to defendant and that the victim had a beer in his right hand when defendant shot him. Based on the foregoing evidence, the prosecutor argued to the jury that the right-handed victim, whose right hand was pinned under his body when the police arrived at the scene, was not holding a knife at the time of the shooting, but rather was holding a beer in his right hand and a lit cigarette in his left hand. The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter. The court of appeal, on original hearing, affirmed defendant's conviction, holding that "when a defendant freely and voluntarily testifies, with his right to counsel observed, and knowingly and intelligently waives his right to remain silent, and his discovery request is properly answered, there is no prohibition to his statements to the grand jury being presented at trial." 37,475 at 13 (La. App. 2d Cir. 10/27/99), 750 So.2d 1014, 1022. On rehearing before a five-judge panel, the court reversed the conviction and held that Louisiana's long-standing tradition of protecting the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, as embodied in La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 434, precluded the prosecutor from using defendant's grand jury testimony as substantive evidence at trial.

3

This court granted certiorari to address the res nova issue. 00-0453 (La. 9/22/00), ____ So. 2d ____.

Use of Grand Jury Testimony La. Const. art. 5,

Download 2000-K-0453 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. CHARLES O. POLAND.pdf

Louisiana Law