State Of Louisiana v. John Jacob Jenkins

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2023 KW 0723
PAGE 1 OF 2

VERSUS

JOHN JACOB JENKINS OCTOBER 10, 2023

In Re: John Jacob Jenkins, applying for supervisory writs,

22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany,
No. 3085- F- 2020.

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Relevant

tendency to make the
evidence means evidence having any
of fact that is of consequence to the
existence any
determination of the action more probable or less probable than
it would be without the evidence. La. Code Evid. art. 401.

Other crimes evidence is admissible under the integral act

known res gestae) when the evidence
exception ( formerly as

relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act
or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding.

See State v. Brewington, 601 So. 2d 656, 657 ( La. 1992) ( per

curiam). Integral act evidence in Louisiana incorporates a

rule of narrative completeness without which the State' s case

would lose its narrative momentum and cohesiveness. See State

v. Taylor, 2001- 1638 ( La. 1/ 14/ 03), 838 So. 2d 729, 741, cert.

denied, 540 U. S. 1103, 124 S. Ct. 1036, 157 L. Ed. 2d 886 ( 2004) .

See also State v. Calloway, 2018- 1396 ( La. App. 1st Cir.

4/ 12/ 19), 276 So. 3d 133, writ denied, 2019- 00869 ( La. 1/ 20/ 21),

308 So. 3d 1164. Current cases question whether the integral -

act evidence under La. Code Evid. art. 404( B) remains subject

Code Evid. art. 403. Taylor, 838
to the balancing test of La.
So. 2d at 745. In this case, the prejudicial effect of the

evidence admitted does not substantially outweigh its probative
value. Thus, we need not decide whether integral -act evidence

presented under the authority of La. Code Evid. art. 404( B)

the balancing test of Article 403. See
must invariably pass

Taylor, 838 So. 2d at 745.

The video recordings recovered from relator' s cellular

phone are not other crimes or acts within the meaning of La.

Code Evid. art. 404( B). Instead, the video recordings are

evidence of conduct that constitute an integral part of the act
death that is the subject of the present
by drug overdose)

as provided for by La. Code Evid. art. 404 ( B) ( 1) .
proceeding,
In addition, the recordings place the victim with relator

before or contemporaneous with her death. Thus, the
shortly
State has established an independent and relevant reason for

admission of the video recordings in ( IMG_ 0259)0259) and ( IMG_ 0263).0263).
Prior to admission of the recordings, the district court should
include an instruction informing the jury of the nature of the
evidence, that the evidence consists of video recordings

obtained from relator' s cellular phone, and that the evidence

is not being offered to prove the allegations, but for the sole

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ffqs-
' m

2023 KW 0723
PAGE 2 OF 2

purpose of providing a complete picture of what transpired on
the date in question. However, because the same conduct that

is captured in the first recording ( IMG —0255) is also captured

in the second IMG - 0259), the ruling denying the
recording (
request to exclude the first recording ( IMG 0255) is reversed.

In all other respects, the writ application is denied.

PMC
CHH

Miller, J., concurs.