Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Louisiana » Louisiana Supreme Court » 2010 » 2009-KK-1177 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TRACEY YOUNG
2009-KK-1177 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TRACEY YOUNG
State: Louisiana
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 2009-KK-1177
Case Date: 01/01/2010
Preview:Supreme Court of Louisiana
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #025

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinion handed down on the 5th day of April, 2010, is as follows:

BY GUIDRY, J.:

2009-KK-1177

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TRACEY YOUNG (Parish of E. Baton Rouge) Kimball, C.J., participated in oral argument participate in the deliberation of this opinion. but did not

For the reasons stated herein, the ruling of the district court permitting the admission of the defendant's proposed expert testimony on the validity of eyewitness identifications is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT VACATED; CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT. JOHNSON, J., concurs and assigns reasons. KNOLL, J., additionally concurs with reasons. WEIMER, J., concurs with reasons.

Page 1 of 1

4/5/2010 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2009-KK-1177 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS TRACEY YOUNG ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

GUIDRY, Justice* The instant criminal proceeding involves the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification. An East Baton Rouge grand jury indicted the defendant, Tracey Young, for first degree murder pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute 14:30. After unsuccessful efforts to suppress eyewitness identifications of the defendant as the gunman, the defense gave notice of its intent to introduce expert testimony at trial on factors that might affect the reliability of the identifications. Following a hearing, the district court ruled the defendant's proffered expert in the field of eyewitness identification would be permitted to testify at trial in the event the State of Louisiana (hereafter, the "State") presented the identifications. The State sought review in the court of appeal, which found no error in the district court's ruling. We granted certiorari in this matter to address the correctness of the district court's ruling. Upon review, we find the district court erred in allowing the introduction of the testimony of the defendant's expert. The proposed testimony on the general factors contributing to a misidentification does not satisfy the standard for admission of

Kimball, C.J., participated in oral argument but did not participate in the deliberation of this opinion.

*

expert testimony articulated under Louisiana Code of Evidence article 702 because the testimony will not aid the jury in its deliberations and, instead, is inclined to be more prejudicial than probative in value. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we vacate the district court's ruling granting the admissibility of the testimony of the defendant's proposed expert on eyewitness identification and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. FACTS On September 8, 2006, East Baton Rouge Parish detectives responded to the late night shooting of two persons in a restaurant parking lot. Upon their arrival, the male victim, Aaron Arnold, was unresponsive with gunshot wounds to his upper body. He never regained consciousness and ultimately died from his injuries. The female victim, Dionne Grayson, was lying on the ground with gunshot wounds to her legs. She provided statements to detectives at the scene and hours after her admission to the hospital. Ms. Grayson informed detectives that, after leaving work, she and Mr. Arnold were in the process of putting gasoline in her vehicle when a white automobile occupied by two men pulled alongside them. She stated a black male brandishing a semiautomatic handgun exited the passenger front seat and demanded their wallets. Ms. Grayson claimed the individual shot them before they could fully comply with his request. She gave a description of the gunman's physical features. Nancy Segura witnessed the attempted robbery and shootings. She was sitting in a vehicle in close proximity to Ms. Grayson's car, while waiting for a friend to leave work. She was not noticed by the assailants. Additionally, there were several witnesses located at a nearby coffee shop who observed the driver and the white vehicle used in the commission of the crime both prior to and after the shootings. Detectives obtained statements from the witnesses.

2

During the course of the police investigation, a confidential informant provided detectives with information regarding the involvement of Sanchez Brumfield, the getaway driver and the defendant's cousin. This led to information from Mr. Brumfield linking the defendant and his vehicle to the crime.1 Ms. Segura identified the defendant from a photographic lineup as the individual who shot Mr. Arnold and Ms. Grayson. Detectives ran the defendant's name in their computer files and learned that a white vehicle similar to the model described as being involved in the crime was registered to the defendant's home address. The defendant was later arrested. Near the time of the arrest, Ms. Grayson was presented with a photographic lineup and identified the defendant as the gunman. The defendant denies any involvement in the crime. PROCEDURAL HISTORY A grand jury indicted the defendant for first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. The State gave notice of its intent to seek the death penalty. Thereafter, it severed the charges and announced that it would proceed solely on the charge of first degree murder, although it intended to introduce evidence of the attempted first degree murder of Ms. Grayson as res gestae. Defense Efforts to Suppress and Exclude Identifications The defense moved to suppress the identifications made by Ms. Segura and Ms. Grayson alleging the circumstances under which they were made were unclear. The court postponed consideration of the suppression of Ms. Segura's identification until

The driver of the vehicle, Sanchez Brumfield, was convicted and sentenced to death for his participation in the crime. His conviction is currently pending appeal. Mr. Brumfield has stated he will not testify at the defendant's proceedings regarding his statement implicating the defendant as the gunman and the owner of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime. In the instant proceedings, the district court granted defense counsel's motion in limine to bar the State from putting Mr. Brumfield on the witness stand in the event the prosecution anticipated his intention to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and remain silent. 3

1

she returned to the United States to testify at the defendant's trial. Ms. Segura is a Mexican national, who was illegally in the United States at the time of the crime. Sometime after the shootings, Ms. Segura returned to live in Mexico. At the suppression hearing, the State asserted, as it has throughout the entirety of the criminal proceedings, that it was working with the federal government to arrange for Ms. Segura's temporary return to the United States to allow her to testify at the trial. Subsequently, the defense filed a motion in limine to exclude Ms. Segura's statements and identification of the defendant made in connection with Mr. Brumfield's trial. Based on the State's assertion that it was "feverishly" still attempting to obtain Ms. Segura's presence at the defendant's trial, the court excluded her hearsay statements, but not her testimony in the event of her appearance at trial. The district court then proceeded with the hearing on the motion to suppress Ms. Grayson's identification. She testified that she identified the defendant from a photographic lineup conducted by police at her home two weeks after the shootings. Regarding the lineup procedure, Ms. Grayson's testimony on direct examination provided, in part: Ms. Grayson: Basically, they gave me the lineup and, you know, said for me to, you know, have some time. Look at it. And I really didn't need that much time. I
Download 2009-KK-1177 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TRACEY YOUNG.pdf

Louisiana Law

Louisiana State Laws
Louisiana Tax
Louisiana Labor Laws
Louisiana Agencies
    > Louisiana DMV

Comments

Tips