State of Louisiana v. Alfred Simmons

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2021-K-0547

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED SIMMONS *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 546-631, SECTION “DIVISION L”
Judge Angel Harris,
******
Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano
******
(Court composed of Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Regina Bartholomew-
Woods, Judge Dale N. Atkins)

David LeBlanc
Assistant District Attorney
Jason Rogers Williams
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Parish of Orleans
619 South White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR RELATOR/STATE OF LOUISIANA

Alexis Chernow
Orleans Public Defenders
2601 Tulane Avenue, Suite 700
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

WRIT GRANTED, REVERSED

NOVEMBER 24, 2021

JCL This writ presents the issue of whether the district court erred in granting the
RBW
DNA defendant’s motion to exclude La. C.E. art. 412.4 evidence. For the following

reasons, we grant the State’s writ and reverse the district court’s ruling.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 23, 2019, Alfred Simmons (“Defendant”) was charged by

indictment with stalking, second degree murder in which a firearm was used,

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and obstruction of justice. The

alleged victim of the stalking and second degree murder charges was Defendant’s

former girlfriend (“Victim”). Defendant appeared for arraignment on August 27,

2019, at which time he entered a plea of not guilty.

On October 14, 2020, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce evidence

of similar crimes, wrongs, and/or acts at trial pursuant to Louisiana Code of

Evidence art. 404(B). On December 9, 2020, the district court granted the State’s

motion to introduce evidence of similar crimes, wrongs, and/or acts at trial

pursuant to La. C.E. art. 404(B). Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the court’s

ruling. On March 15, 2021, the district court granted the motion to reconsider and

1

ruled that the evidence sought to be introduced does not meet the exceptions

outlined by La. C.E. art. 404(B)(1) and will not be admitted at trial.

On April 21, 2021, the State filed a notice of intent to offer evidence

pursuant to La. C.E. art. 412.4. As explained more fully below, the evidence

sought to be introduced relates to incidents of abusive behavior against

Defendant’s previous girlfriend (“Previous Girlfriend”). On May 6, 2021,

Defendant filed a motion to exclude the La. C.E. art. 412.4 evidence and requested

a hearing. On July 14, 2021, a hearing was conducted. The district court granted

Defendant’s motion to exclude the other acts evidence on July 28, 2021. The State

now seeks supervisory review of the district court’s ruling excluding the La. C.E.

art. 412.4 evidence.

The facts regarding the case sub judice, as detailed in the State’s notice of

intent to offer evidence pursuant to La. C.E. art. 412.4, are as follows:

The allegations underlying these counts are that the defendant
began stalking his former dating partner, [Victim]. The stalking
escalated to threats of physical violence, then actual violence, and,
ultimately, the murder of [Victim] through use of a deadly weapon.
The deadly weapon alleged is a firearm, which the defendant, due to
his felon status, was unlawfully in possession of.

The State relates the prior incident it seeks to introduce as follows:

[F]rom December 21, 2011 to January 15, 2012, the defendant
also engaged in stalking of a previous former dating partner, [Previous
Girlfriend]. Again, the stalking escalated to threats of physical
violence, then actual violence, and ultimately, battery through the use
of a deadly weapon. Fortunately, [Previous Girlfriend] survived her
encounter with the defendant. See attached Las Vegas, Nevada Police
reports and Indictment.

2

DISCUSSION

La. C.E. art. 412.4, entitled “Evidence of similar crimes, wrongs, or acts in

domestic abuse cases and cruelty against juveniles cases,” provides in pertinent

part:

A. When an accused is charged with a crime involving
abusive behavior against a family member, household
member, or dating partner or with acts which constitute
cruelty involving a victim who was under the age of
seventeen at the time of the offense, evidence of the
accused’s commission of another crime, wrong, or act
involving assaultive behavior against a family member,
household member, or dating partner or acts which
constitute cruelty involving a victim who was under the
age of seventeen at the time of the offense, may be
admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any
matter to which it is relevant, subject to the balancing test
provided in Article 403.

“Abusive behavior” is defined as “any behavior of the offender involving the

use or threatened use of force against the person or property of a family

member, household member, or dating partner of the alleged offender.” La.

C.E. art. 412.4(D)(1). “Dating partner” is defined as “any person who is

involved or has been involved in a sexual or intimate relationship with the

offender characterized by the expectation of affectionate involvement

independent of financial considerations, regardless of whether the person

presently lives or formerly lived in the same residence with the offender

[but] shall not include a casual relationship or ordinary association between

persons in a business or social context.” La. C.E. art. 412.4(D)(2).

La. C.E. art. 403 provides as follows:

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading
the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or waste of
time.

3

In State v. Ard, 20-221, pp. 15-16 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/28/21), --- So.3d ---,

2021 WL 1660916, *8, the court held as follows:

This Court recently addressed the application of
La. C.E. art. 412.4 in State v. Thomas, 19-582 (La. App.
5 Cir. 7/29/20), 300 So.3d 517, writ denied, 20-1503 (La.
3/2/21), 311 So.3d 1053, stating:

Though little jurisprudence exists regarding
the application of La. C.E. art. 412.4, in
2001, the Louisiana legislature enacted a
similar provision, La. C.E. art. 412.2, which
allows the admission of evidence in sex
offense cases of other crimes, wrongs or acts
involving sexually assaultive behavior or
which indicate a lustful disposition toward
children. In State v. Wright, 11-141 (La.
12/6/11), 79 So.3d 309, 317, the Louisiana
Supreme Court pointed out that in enacting
La. C.E. 412.2, “the Legislature did not see
fit to impose a restriction requiring such
evidence to meet a stringent similarity
requirement for admissibility.” La. C.E. art.
412.2 was enacted to loosen restrictions on
other crimes evidence. Id. at 317; State v.
Evans, 19-237, p. 9 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/3/20),
298 So.3d 394. Thus, pursuant to La. C.E.
art. 412.2, evidence of a prior sexual offense
indicating that the defendant has a lustful
disposition toward children is admissible if
relevant and if the probative value
outweighs the prejudicial effect. Id.

Considering the similarity between La. C.E.
arts. 412.2 and 412.4, we find that evidence
of prior acts of domestic abuse and cruelty
to juveniles is also admissible if relevant and
the probative value outweighs the
prejudicial effect. The admissibility of
evidence under this article is not limited to
those actions that are identical or similar in
nature to the charged crime. See Louisiana
Practice Evidence Art. 412.4, Evidence of
Similar Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts in
Domestic Abuse Cases and Cruelty Against
Juveniles Cases (2019 ed.).

4

Further, even if independently relevant, the
evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair
prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, by
considerations of undue delay, or waste of time. See La.
C.E. art. 403. Any inculpatory evidence, however, is
“prejudicial” to a defendant, especially when it is
“probative” to a high degree. State v. Rodgers, 16-14 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 10/26/16), 202 So.3d 1189, 1201, writs
denied, 16-2189 (La. 9/15/17), 225 So.3d 479 and 16-
2093 (La. 1/29/18), 235 So.3d 1104. As used in the
balancing test, prejudice limits the introduction of
probative evidence of prior misconduct only when it is
unduly and unfairly prejudicial. Id.; Thomas, 300 So.3d
at 527-28. The term “unfair prejudice,” as to a criminal
defendant, speaks to the capacity of some concededly
relevant evidence to lure the fact-finder into declaring
guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the
offense charged. State v. Smith, 19-607 (La. App. 5 Cir.
1/21/20), --- So.3d ---, 2020 WL 356010, writ denied, 20-
328 (La. 5/1/20), 295 So.3d 945.

Article 412.4 is intended to be an exception to Article 404(B)(1), which

limits the use of other crimes evidence to non-propensity purposes and specifically

prohibits evidence that tends to show the defendant’s criminal propensity. See

Louisiana Practice Evidence Art. 412.4, Evidence of Similar Crimes, Wrongs, or

Acts in Domestic Abuse Cases and Cruelty Against Juveniles Cases (2021 ed.).

Article 412.4 allows the admission of other incidents of domestic abuse for any

relevant purpose, including the defendant’s character and his acts in conformity

therewith, subject only to the balancing test established by La.Code Evid. art. 403.

State v. Porter, 19-221, p. 16 (La. App. 3 Cir. 8/14/19), 279 So.3d 1010, 1021.

The prior crimes evidence the State seeks to admit involves a crime of

stalking and violence toward the victim and is therefore relevant. In conducting the

balancing analysis, the district court held that “the danger of unfair prejudice

substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence at issue” because “[the]

prior domestic violence incident occurred a decade prior to the present case and

5

involved a different victim” and “apart from the mere fact that a [prior] domestic

violence incident occurred, there is no pattern of stalking or any other pattern of

substantial similarity between the prior incident and the present case.”

Although the prior crime occurred numerous years before the incident at

issue herein, a lapse in time will generally go to the weight of the evidence, rather

than to its admissibility. The Supreme Court addressed the effect remoteness in

time has on the admissibility of prior crimes evidence:

The fact that the other acts or crimes happened some time
before the offense for which the defendant is on trial is
not sufficient, in and of itself, to require the exclusion of
the evidence. Remoteness in time, in most cases, is only
one factor to be considered when determining whether
the probative value of the evidence outweighs its
prejudicial effect. Generally, a lapse in time will go to the
weight of the evidence, rather than to its admissibility.
....
... the time between the other crimes evidence and the
offense charged is but one factor to be considered when
balancing probative value, prejudicial effect, and
relevancy. Length of time between the offenses should
not exclude otherwise admissible evidence unless the
lapse strips the testimony of probative value. While there
must be some connexity between the crime charged and
the other acts or crimes, the mere passage of time will not
necessarily defeat admissibility.

State v. Altenberger, 13-2518, p. 9 (La. 4/11/14), 139 So.3d 510, 516 (citing State

v. Jackson, 625 So.2d 146, 149-51 (La. 1993).

The district court erroneously concluded that the prior crime did not involve

stalking. The prior crimes evidence shows that Defendant engaged in a pattern of

stalking his previous girlfriend, which eventually escalated to threats of physical

violence, then actual violence, and ultimately, battery through the use of a deadly

weapon. The prior crimes evidence involves actions taken against a prior dating

partner and is highly probative. The facts of the prior crime are not complicated,

6

nor are they likely to confuse or mislead the jury. We find that the district court

erred in finding that the probative value of the proffered evidence is substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

CONCLUSION

After carefully reviewing the prior crimes evidence in light of La. C.E. art.

403 and La. C.E. art. 412.4, we find the probative value of the evidence outweighs

any danger of unfair prejudice to Defendant. Thus, we find the district court abused

its discretion, grant the State’s writ application, rule the La. C.E. art. 412.4

evidence admissible, and remand the matter for further proceedings in conformity

with this court’s ruling.

WRIT GRANTED, REVERSED

7