State Of Louisiana v. Roderick Hackett

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 06, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
RODERICK HACKETT
No. 2022-KK-01322
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Roderick Hackett - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Number(s) 19- 4706, Court of
Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number(s) 22-K-277;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 06, 2022
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
WJC
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
JBM
PDG
12/06/2022 "See News Release 052 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2022-KK-01322
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
RODERICK HACKETT
On Supervisory Writ to the 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson
PER CURIAM
Louisiana Code of Evidence article 404(B)(1) provides:
Except as provided in Article 412, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or
acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show
that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible
for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident,
provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal
case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, of the nature of
any such evidence it intend s to introduce at trial for such purposes, or
when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or
transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding.
Pursuant to this article, the general rule is that evidence of other crimes or bad
acts committed by a criminal defendant is not admissible at trial. The legislature
provided for two exceptions: (1) when the evidence tends to prove one of the
enumerated purposes; or (2) when the evidence forms part of the res gestae of the
charged offense. These exceptions are not without limits. The State must establish
independent relevance apart from showing defendant’s general criminal character.
State v. Garcia, 09-1578 (La. 11/16/12). Further, the evidence must tend to prove a
material fact genuinely at issue. State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 44 (La. 1/16/08), 976 So.2d
109, 139. Additionally, the State must prove the defendant committed the other acts.
Id. Lastly, the probative value of the extraneous crimes evidence must outweigh its
prejudicial effect. La. Code Evid. art. 403; State v. Hatcher, 372 So.2d 1024, 1033
(La. 1979).
12/06/22

2

Here, to prove intent, the State seeks to introduce evidence regarding
overdoses of third parties that allegedly occurred as a result of the defendant’s prior
distribution of heroin in 2016. While this falls within the scope of the enumerated
purposes of article 404(B)(1), the State does not show how overdoses are relevant to
proving intent in the instant charge of possession with intent to distribute. The
defendant is not c harged with murder, manslaughter, or any other crime of bodily
injury; thus, the overdose evidence does not tend to prove a material fact genuinely
at issue. Nor does the State prove that the defendant’s act of distribution in 2016
caused the overdoses. T hus, the requirement that the State prove the defendant
committed the other act (of overdosing a third party) is not met. Last, the probative
value of evidence showing the defendant’s distribution led to two people overdosing
is substantially outweighed b y the danger of unfair prejudice. Thus, the first
exception of admitting evidence for the enumerated purpose of intent fails.
Next, as evidenced by its argument at the motion in limine hearing, the State
contends the overdose evidence is admissible as res gestae evidence. In order to
qualify as such, the evidence must constitute “an integral part of the act or transaction
that is the subject of the present proceeding .” La. Code Evid. art. 404(B)(1)
(emphasis added). This court has approved the admission of other crimes evidence
when it is related and intertwined with the charged offense to such an extent that the
State could not have accurately presented its case without reference to it. State v.
Boyd, 359 So.2d 931, 942 (La.1978). The purpose behind the res gestae exception is
to allow the State to “complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its
immediate context of happenings near in time and place.” State v. Brewington, 601
So. 2d 656, 657 (La. 1992) (emphasis added).
The State’s inclusion of the overdoses as relevant to the narrative surrounding
the controlled buy in 2016, which led to the 2016 arrest, is res gestae as to the 2016
charge. It is not res gestae as to the 2019 charge, which is the subject of the present

3

proceeding. Overdose evidence that gives context to the 2016 offense, which led to
the defendant’s 2016 arrest and conviction, is not necessary to complete the State’s
story of the crime on trial –the 2019 offense. There is no dispute the defendant
committed the 2016 offense. He pled guilty to attempt to distribute heroin and was
convicted. The defendant does not object to the admissibility of the 2016 conviction
as it is relevant to show intent. However, the overdose evidence surrounding that
2016 conviction has no independent relevance to prove intent, nor does it constitute
an integral part of the 2019 transaction or act. The State fails to show that an
exception to the general rule of exclusion of other crimes or bad acts would apply
with respect to th e overdoses allegedly related to the previous convictions. While
the evidence of the prior conviction is admissible, any evidence related to the
overdoses must be excluded. Accordingly, we reverse the lower courts’ ruling on
the motion in limine, finding no evidence of the 2016 overdoses is admissible.