State of Louisiana Versus Shantel Parria

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 22-K-395

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

SHANTEL PARRIA COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

August 23, 2022

Susan Buchholz
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 Marc E. Johnson,
John J. Molaison, Jr., and June B. Darensburg

WRIT GRANTED

The State seeks review of the trial court’s August 22, 2022 ruling granting
defendant’s Motion to Exclude Testimony and Images of Neuroradiologist. For
the following reasons, this writ application is granted.

On November 8, 2018, a Jefferson Parish Grand Jury indicted defendant,
Shantel M. Parria, with the second degree murder of Troy Smith. On February 25,
2022, the State filed “Notice Pursuant to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 719.” In its notice, the State asserted that it was providing the following
information with regard to the testimony of expert witnesses in this case:

1. Dr. John Joslyn (Neuroradiologist, Tulane Medical Center)
Dr. Joslyn, while working for East Jefferson General Hospital, was hired
as a consultant to the Jefferson Parish Coroner’s Office after the autopsy
of Sgt. Troy Smith. Dr. Joslyn’s records, radiology slides and other
materials have been previously provided to defense counsel in pretrial
discovery. His Curriculum Vitae is attached to this notification.

WHEREFORE, the State of Louisiana respectfully submits that the
aforementioned evidence is admissible under the above statutory
authority.

(See notice, Exhibit G, attached to the writ application).

On March 3, 2022, defendant filed Motion to Exclude Testimony and
Images of Neuroradiologist. In his motion, defendant moved the trial court to
exclude all references to and/or viewing of the three-dimensional (3D) computer-
generated images created by Dr. Joslyn. Defendant argued that the testimony of

22-K-395

Dr. Joslyn should be excluded because he is not qualified to give an opinion
regarding the trajectory of the bullet, and he has no opinion regarding the exit
wound or the trajectory of the bullet. Defendant further argued that Dr. Joslyn’s
involvement in this proceeding does not establish any reliable “Daubert standard”
evidence, that his 3D imagery does not exhibit an exit wound, and that the opinions
of Dr. Dana Troxclair, the State’s pathologist, and JPSO Deputy Chief Timothy
Scanlan are flawed as they are based on this imagery.

The minute entry dated March 15, 2022 reflects that defendant waived her
Motion to Exclude Testimony and Images of Neuroradiologist at that time. On
April 6, 2022, defendant’s first trial began; however, the trial court subsequently
granted defendant’s motion to continue.

During new trial proceedings on August 22, 2022, a hearing was held on
defendant’s Motion to Exclude Testimony and Images of Neuroradiologist. After
hearing arguments of counsel, the trial court granted defendant’s motion, stating
that it would not allow the State to qualify Dr. Joslyn as an expert if he did not
have a written report. The State then proffered questions to Dr. Joslyn even though
he was not present.

In this writ application, the State argues that the trial court erred by granting
defendant’s motion. The State contends that it filed its Article 719 notice well in
advance of trial. It pointed out that Article 719 does not exclusively require a
report, and that in the instant case, a report would make no sense given that Dr.
Joslyn has no opinion that would necessitate a report. The State noted that Dr.
Joslyn’s testimony would essentially be relative to how he created and prepared the
3D images at issue. The State asserted that as noted in its Article 719 notice, it
provided Dr. Joslyn’s records, radiology slides, and other materials to defense
counsel in pretrial discovery so as to satisfy the requirements of Article 719.
Further, the State contends that although defense counsel initially moved to
exclude Dr. Joslyn’s testimony and images, defense counsel explicitly waived that
motion in advance of the first trial but then this morning sought to revive that
objection.

In his opposition to the writ application, defendant argues that the trial court
did not err by granting his motion. He contends that the State failed to abide by the
controlling law of Article 719 by failing to provide defense counsel a list of
materials upon which Dr. Joslyn’s conclusion is based and his opinion and the
reason therefor. Defendant relies on State v. Joekel, 19-334 (La. App. 5 Cir.
12/20/19), 2019 WL 7044739, writ denied, stay denied, 20-86 (La. 1/14/20), 286
So 3d 430 in support of his motion.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 719 provides in pertinent part:

A. Upon written motion of the defendant, the court shall order
the district attorney to permit or authorize the defendant to inspect and
copy, photograph, or otherwise reproduce any results or reports, or
copies thereof, of a physical or mental examination, and of scientific
tests or experiments, made in connection with or material to the
particular case, that are in the possession, custody, control, or
knowledge of the district attorney and intended for use at trial. If the
witness preparing the report will be called as an expert, the report
shall contain the witness’s area of expertise, his qualifications, a list of

2

materials upon which his conclusion is based, and his opinion and the
reason therefor. If the expert witness has not reduced his results to
writing, or if the expert witness’s written report does not contain the
information required of an expert as provided in this Article, the state
must produce for the defendant a written summary containing any
information required to be produced pursuant to this Article but absent
from a written report, if any, including the name of the expert witness,
his qualifications, a list of materials upon which his conclusion is
based, and his opinion and the reason therefor.
In the instant case, we find that the trial court erred by granting defendant’s
Motion to Exclude Testimony and Images of Neuroradiologist. We find that the
State met the notice requirement in Article 719, and that based on the proffered
questions at the hearing, Dr. Joslyn is not offering an expert opinion, rather, he is
only providing a foundation for the 3D scans. Further, the State provided
defendant the name of the expert witness, his qualifications, and Dr. Joslyn’s
records, radiology slides, and other materials.

Also, we find that Joekel is distinguishable from the instant case. In Joekel,
the State argued that it satisfied its disclosure requirements by providing the
defendant with written notice that Mr. Scanlan would opine that the autopsy
findings and physical evidence were consistent with “eyewitness accounts given by
deputies.” This Court in Joekel found that in order to reach this conclusion, Mr.
Scanlan had to conduct examinations and tests of the relevant evidence which
would be presented to the jury during his trial testimony. In Joekel, this Court was
of the opinion that disclosure of the various examinations and/or test results used
by Mr. Scanlan to formulate his conclusory opinion was necessary for the
defendant’s adequate preparation for trial and to cross-examine the expert, and
must be given to the defense. In the instant case, unlike Joekel, the State provided
defendant with Dr. Joslyn’s records, radiology slides, and other materials, and Dr.
Joslyn, unlike Mr. Scanlan, will not be offering an expert opinion. Rather, as was
stated above, Dr. Joslyn’s testimony would be relative to how he created and
prepared the 3D images at issue.

Furthermore, the minute entry dated March 15, 2022 reflects that defendant
waived her Motion to Exclude Testimony and Images of Neuroradiologist at that
time.

Accordingly, this writ application is granted. The ruling of the trial court
granting defendant’s Motion to Exclude Testimony and Images of
Neuroradiologist is reversed, and the stay is lifted.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 23rd day of August, 2022.

JBD
JJM

3

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 22-K-395

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

SHANTEL PARRIA COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

JOHNSON, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS

I concur with the majority’s disposition because the Defense waived their

Motion to Exclude Images and Testimony of Neuroradiologist. Otherwise, I do

not find that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the State

should have provided additional information to the defense pursuant to La.

C.Cr.P. art. 719 as a few of the questions proffered by the State may elicit

opinion testimony.

MEJ

4

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 08/23/2022 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-395
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable E. Adrian Adams (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Leo J. Palazzo (Respondent) Thomas J. Butler (Relator)
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