State of Louisiana Versus Daniel Cali

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 22-K-372

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL CALI COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

August 17, 2022

Susan Buchholz
First 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 DANYELLE M.
TAYLOR, DIVISION "O", NUMBER 18-2768

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson,
John J. Molaison, Jr., and June B. Darensburg

WRIT GRANTED

The State seeks review of the trial court judgment dated May 12, 2022
granting the defendant’s “Notice of 404B/412.4, Alleged Victim’s Prior Acts
Evidence,” which rendered its “Motion in Limine Regarding Admissibility of
Character Evidence of Witnesses” moot. For the reasons that follow, we grant this
writ application.

The defendant is charged with Domestic Abuse Battery in violation of La.
R.S. 14:35.3, stemming from an incident that occurred on May 11, 2018, when the
victim went to the defendant’s residence to retrieve her belongings. The defendant
filed a motion pursuant to La. C.E. art 404B to introduce evidence that the victim
“has the habit of drinking alcohol every day, all day and night. She becomes
argumentative, unstable and loses self-control, both in person and via phone and
text messages, harassing and threatening” the defendant. In granting the
defendant’s motion, the trial court stated that the “prior actions and interactions
with each other are absolutely relevant and it meets 404(B) for other crimes,
wrongs or acts that are admissible…”

The defendant’s right to present a defense is guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the
Louisiana Constitution. This right, however, does not necessitate that a trial court
allow the introduction of evidence that is inadmissible, irrelevant, or has so little
probative value that it is substantially outweighed by other legitimate
considerations in the administration of justice. State v. Lirette, 11-1167 (La. App.
5 Cir. 6/28/12), 102 So.3d 801, 813.

While La. C.E. art. 607(D)(2) allows “extrinsic evidence … offered solely to
attack the credibility of a witness,” the trial court is required to determine whether
“the probative value of the evidence on the issue of credibility is substantially
outweighed by the risks of undue consumption of time, confusion of the issues, or
unfair prejudice.” State v. Juniors, 03-2425 (La. 6/29/05), 915 So.2d 291, 330.
The extrinsic evidence sought to be used is also subject to the limitation of La.
C.E. art. 608(B), which provides:

Particular acts, vices, or courses of conduct of a witness may
not be inquired into or proved by extrinsic evidence for the purpose of
attacking his character for truthfulness, other than conviction of crime
as provided in Articles 609 and 609.1 or as constitutionally required.

In State v. Jackson, 00-1573 (La. 12/7/01), 800 So. 2d 854, 856, the
Louisiana Supreme Court held that the trial court “correctly permitted defense
counsel to question the victim as to any drug use at the time of the offense, a
matter about which counsel could have introduced extrinsic evidence to show the
victim’s lack of capacity to give an accurate and reliable account of the incident.”
The Court went on to find: “[A]s to counsel’s broader inquiry into the victim’s
general use of drugs, in most cases, ‘evidence of habitual intemperance ... bears
little relevance to the credibility of the witness and falls within the proscription ...
against impeachment of the general credibility through particular acts and vices.’”
Id.

Likewise, in the instant matter, while the defendant may put on evidence
regarding the victim’s alleged intoxication at the time of the incident that forms the
basis of this charge against the defendant or her alleged intoxication at the time of
other admissible incidents between the victim and the defendant, evidence that the
victim allegedly has a history of drinking excessively is not admissible.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ application is granted and the portion of
the trial court judgment allowing evidence of the victim’s alleged intoxication
and/or excessive consumption of alcohol at any time other than at the time of the
incident forming the basis of the charges against the defendant or any other
admissible incidents between the victim and the defendant is reversed.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 17th day of August, 2022.

JJM
MEJ
JBD

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
INTERIM CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON .
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 08/17/2022 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-372
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Danyelle M. Taylor (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Relator) Richard H. Barker, IV (Respondent)
Darren A. Allemand (Relator)

MAILED
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr. (Relator)
District Attorney
Twenty-Fourth Judicial District
200 Derbigny Street
Gretna, LA 70053