State of Louisiana Versus Shantel Parria

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 22-K-144

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

SHANTEL PARRIA COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

April 05, 2022

Nancy F. Vega
Chief Deputy Clerk

IN RE STATE OF LOUISIANA

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
E. ADRIAN ADAMS, DIVISION "G", NUMBER 18-4457

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Hans J. Liljeberg

WRIT GRANTED IN PART FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE; DENIED
IN PART; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Relator, the State of Louisiana, seeks review of the trial court’s ruling to
accept Dr. Maanasi Chandarana as an expert witness after the State’s filing of a
“Motion for Daubert and La. C.E. art. 702 hearings.” For the following reasons,
we grant the writ for a limited purpose to clarify and limit the scope of the expert’s
testimony in the field of pathology. As to all other relief requested, the writ is
denied. We further remand this matter to the trial court for immediate resumption
of trial by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 6, 2022.

On November 8, 2018, a Jefferson Parish grand jury returned an indictment
charging defendant, Shantel Parria, with the second degree murder of her husband
in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. On March 29, 2022, days prior to trial, the State
filed a “Motion for Daubert and La. C.E. art. 702 hearings.” In its motion and
pertinent to this writ application, the State challenged a defense expert, Dr.
Chandarana, a board certified psychiatrist in forensic psychiatry and psychiatry.
Dr. Chandarana prepared an expert report entitled “Suicide Risk Assessment at
Time of Death” to support defendant’s defense at trial that her husband’s death was
a suicide rather than a homicide.

On March 31, 2022, the trial judge conducted a Daubert hearing at which
Dr. Chandarana testified as to her qualifications, as well as her report, and the
methodology and sources used to support her opinion concerning the victim’s
suicide risk at the time of his death. At the conclusion of the Daubert hearing, the
trial judge stated on the record that he considered the Daubert factors as well as the
provisions concerning expert testimony provided in La. C.E. art. 702, and

22-K-144

determined that Dr. Chandarana’s expert testimony would be beneficial to the trier-
of-fact in this case. The transcript indicates that the trial judge accepted Dr.
Chandarana as an expert in the three areas offered: forensic psychiatry, forensic
neuropsychiatry, and pathology. On April 4, 2022, while voir dire was in progress,
the State filed the instant writ application seeking review of the trial court’s March
31, 2022 ruling. On that date, this Court issued a stay of the trial until Wednesday,
April 6, 2022, at 9:00 a.m.

La. C.E. Art. 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony and provides
that a witness, who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if
the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier
of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. State v. Achelles,
16-170 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/21/16), 208 So.3d 1068, 1077. In State v. Foret, 628
So.2d 1116 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth
in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786,
125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), regarding proper standards for the admissibility of expert
testimony, which require the trial court to act in a gatekeeping function to ensure
that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but
reliable. State v. Boudoin, 11-967 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/12), 106 So.3d 1213,
1225, writ denied, 13-0255 (La.8/30/13), 120 So.3d 260. The Daubert inquiry
consists of four considerations: (1) whether the theory or technique can be and has
been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review
and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether the
methodology is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. Id. at
1225. State v. Francois, 13-616 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/31/14), 134 So.3d 42, 59, writ
denied, 14-0431 (La. 9/26/14), 149 So.3d 261(quotations omitted). A trial judge’s
decision to qualify an expert witness or to admit or exclude certain expert
testimony is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. Id.; State v. Stokes, 99-
1287 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/13/00), 759 So.2d 980, 984, writ denied, 00-1219 (La.
2/16/01), 802 So.2d 607.

Upon a thorough review of the writ application and attachments thereto, we
find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in accepting Dr. Chandarana as
an expert in forensic psychiatry, forensic neuropsychiatry, and pathology, and in
finding that Dr. Chandarana’s testimony would be beneficial to the trier-of-fact in
this case. To address an issue raised by the State, however, we grant this writ for a
limited purpose to clarify that the scope of Dr. Chandarana’s expert testimony in
pathology does not include opining on the cause of the victim’s death. Pathology
is “the study of the essential nature of diseases and especially of the structural and
functional changes produced by them.”1 In the context of this case and this
witness’s scope of expertise, pathology is limited to the study of the essential
nature of mental health issues, conditions, disorders and diseases, specifically
including the risk factors for suicide. In all other respects, this writ is denied.

However, a review of the writ application reflects that the minute entry in
the record states that Dr. Chandarana was accepted as an expert in “forensic
psychology,” which is inconsistent with the transcript. Because the transcript
prevails, we hereby order the Clerk of Court for the 24th Judicial District Court to
correct the minute entry to reflect that Dr. Chandarana was accepted as an expert in

1
See “Pathology.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/pathology.
2

the three fields offered: forensic psychiatry, forensic neuropsychiatry, and
pathology.

Moreover, because defendant remains incarcerated and this matter has been
pending for approximately three years, we remand this matter for trial to be
immediately resumed by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 6, 2022.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 5th day of April, 2022.

FHW
SMC
HJL

3

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

NANCY F. VEGA
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 04/05/2022 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

22-K-144
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable E. Adrian Adams (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Relator) Leo J. Palazzo (Respondent)
Jason J. Markey (Respondent) Darren A. Allemand (Relator)
Mario A. Arteaga, Jr. (Respondent)

MAILED
Davin R. Savoy (Respondent) Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr. (Relator)
Attorney at Law District Attorney
732 Behrman Highway Twenty-Fourth Judicial District
Suites F & G 200 Derbigny Street
Gretna, LA 70056 Gretna, LA 70053