State Of Louisiana v. Larry West

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 06, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
LARRY WEST
No. 2024-K-00133
_ _
_ _ _ _
IN
RE: Larry West - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish
of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Number(s) 273- 18, Court of Appeal, First
Circuit, Number(s) 2023 KA 0286;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 06, 2024
Writ application granted. Relief denied. Affirmed. See per curiam.
JTK
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
PDG
11/06/2024 "See News Release 050 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2024-K-00133
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
LARRY WEST
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Iberville
PER CURIAM
Writs were granted in this matter for the sole purpose of addressing defendant’s
contention that the court of appeal erred in allowing Dr. Michael Defatta, St.
Tammany Parish Coroner’s Office Chief Pathologist and Medical Director for
Forensic Operations, to testify about the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Ann Lee, the
forensic pathologist from the St. Tammany Parish Coroner’s Office who performed
the autopsy, an alleged violation of his right to confront his accusers. In finding no
confrontation clause 1 violation, the court of appeal adopted a bright line rule of
admissibility, stating:
[W]e now hold that a doctor’s testimony to an autopsy report created by
a different doctor does not violate the defendant’s right to confrontation.
Autopsy reports contain routine, descriptive, and non-analytical
information. Unlike the sworn affidavits contemplated in Melendez-
Diaz,2 autopsy reports are not testimonial in nature.
State v. West, 23-0286, p. 13 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/27/23) (unpub’d) (internal citations
omitted).
1 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of the accused in a
criminal prosecution to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The Louisiana Constitution
likewise guarantees the accused the right “to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.”
La. Const. art. I, § 16.
2 Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009).
11/06/24

The adoption of a per se rule of admissibility is unnecessary and not required
by confrontation clause jurisprudence. Id. 23-0286 at 1 (Miller, J., concurring in part)
(“[I]nsofar as the majority opinion pronounces a per se rule of admission, I believe
this conclusion should be avoided.”). Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor this court
have adopted a bright line rule with respect to autopsy reports. In fact, this court has
acknowledged that the case circumstances and the evidence in dispute tend to dictate
the inquiry. See, State v. Mullins, 14-2260, pp. 6-8 (La. 1/27/16), 188 So.3d 164,
170-71 (citing Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50, 56 (2012), and State v. Bolden, 11-
2435 (La. 10/26/12), 108 So.3d 1159); see also, State v. Monroe, 345 So.2d 1185,
1190 (La. 1977) (probable confrontation violation where “an unsworn out-of-court
statement by a [doctor other than the one testifying] was admitted to prove a crucial
issue in the case.”). We adopt the view that the sprawling confrontation clause
jurisprudence favors individualized assessments over per se rules about what is
testimonial.
In this case, even if the autopsy report is testimonial, any confrontation clause
violation for allowing Dr. Defatta to testify to its conclusions is still subject to
harmless error analysis. See, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680-81
(1986); State v. Broadway, 96-2659, p.24 (La. 10/19/99), 753 So.2d 801, 817. An
error is generally harmless unless it “had substantial and injurious effect or influence
in determining the jury’s verdict.” Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776
(1946).
Here, the defendant neither argues nor demonstrates that Dr. Defatta’s
testimony had any substantial or injurious effect on the defense because the cause and
manner of death were not controverted. See, Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 776; see also,
State v. Russell, 42,479, p.16 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/26/07), 966 So.2d 154, 165-66
2

(purported error of admitting coroner’s report without examining physician was
harmless because report was cumulative evidence of victim’s uncontroverted death
and cause of death). Thus, under a harmless error analysis, defendant fails to show
his entitlement to relief. The primary dispute centered on the perpetrator’s identity.
Therefore, defendant cannot show harm from Dr. Defatta testifying about the autopsy,
which was performed by a doctor under Dr. Defatta’s supervision, and not by him
personally.
Defendant’s related claim that Dr. Defatta’s testimony exceeded the scope of
his knowledge also lacks merit. Under La. C.E. art. 703, a witness qualified as an
expert can give opinion testimony that includes facts or data perceived by or made
known to him at or before the trial. Those facts need not be admissible alone in order
to form the basis for the opinion. Defendant argues Dr. Defatta was improperly
influenced by photos of the victim and forensic findings made by others. However,
he fails to show that the expert gave any opinions outside of his expertise or that any
alleged error caused any harm or prejudice to defendant’s defense.
We reject the court of appeal’s adoption of a bright line rule for the
admissibility of autopsy reports. In all other respects, the decision of the court of
appeal is affirmed.
WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; AFFIRMED.
3