State of Louisiana Versus Vincent Goffner, Jacorey Davis, and Malik Rodrigue

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 23-K-179

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

VINCENT GOFFNER, JACOREY DAVIS, COURT OF APPEAL
AND MALIK RODRIGUE
STATE OF LOUISIANA

April 07, 2023

Linda Wiseman
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 E. ADRIAN ADAMS,
DIVISION "G", NUMBER 22-209

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Jude G. Gravois, and Robert A. Chaisson

WRIT GRANTED; STAY DENIED

In this writ application, relator, the State of Louisiana, seeks this Court’s

review of the trial court’s April 5, 2023 ruling that denied its notice of intent to

introduce various items of evidence at trial as res gestae or pursuant to La. C.E. art.

404(B).

On April 3, 2023, the State filed a notice setting forth its intent to introduce

evidence of Vincent Goffner’s Instagram records, Facebook records, iCloud

records, and cell phone extraction at the trial, which is scheduled to begin on

Monday, April 10, 2023. The State maintained that this evidence is admissible as

res gestae because it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or

transaction that is the subject of the instant proceeding and is necessary for the

State to present to the jury a full picture of the investigation conducted. In the

alternative, the State maintained that this evidence is admissible pursuant to the

provisions of La. C.E. art. 404(B) because the evidence goes to Goffner’s intent to

possess a firearm and to show a possible motive for the homicide.

23-K-179

In its motion, the State did not detail which specific pieces of evidence it

would seek to introduce at trial, but rather requested an in globo ruling that all the

evidence be deemed admissible.1 Counsel for Mr. Goffner objected to the manner

in which the State was presenting its motion, contending that the attached exhibit

contained “10,000 plus pages,” and arguing that “[t]here’s no way that this Court

can perform any gatekeeping function, relative to whether there’s a picture, a video

or a receipt or what have you, when we don’t know what individual document

they’re talking about.”2 In response to this objection, the State acknowledged that it

was not seeking to introduce all of the evidence and argued the following:

Furthermore, and most importantly, the State acknowledges in its own
motion that the prejudicial value cannot outweigh the probative effect
of anything the State wishes to introduce, as a matter with regards to
res gestae. So, the Court’s gatekeeping function in the res gestae
context, comes in a case by case basis, as to each individual item the
State would seek to introduce at trial, not in this stage of the
proceedings in a pretrial notice.
In addition, I’ve made it known to Defense counsel that as is
customary for myself in trials, prior to introducing anything at trial,
before the calling of witnesses, it’s my intention to screen shot and
turn over images of anything within these records that I intend to
introduce. We’re certainly not seeking to introduce every single
item in the content of these various digital recordings, because
they are not all relevant to the case. And, I will provide, as I stated,
the defense with the ones that I intend to introduce, if they wish to
make more specific objections at that time, that would be what the law
contemplates (emphasis added).

On April 5, 2023, after a hearing, the trial court denied the State’s notice,

rendering an in globo ruling as to the entirety of the voluminous items contained in

the State’s exhibit, finding that the evidence was not res gestae and that the State

1
In connection with its res gestae/404(B) Notice, the State in essence provided what is often
derisively referred to as a “document dump,” with the expectation that the trial court, defense
counsel, and now this Court could simply comb through the items to make appropriate objections
to (in the case of defense counsel) and appropriate rulings on admissibility (in the case of the
trial court and this Court).
2
In response to this objection, the State initially noted its discovery obligations to provide the
evidence in its possession to the defense; however, the State’s discovery obligations are not
particularly relevant to the specific objection that defense counsel made to the manner in which
the State was bringing its res gestae/404(B) Notice that was before the Court.
2

failed to meet the obligations, requirements, and standards set forth in La. C.E. art.

404(B). The State now seeks emergency review of this ruling.

In its writ application, the State acknowledges that it does not intend to

introduce the entirety of these records at trial. The State further suggests to this

Court that, “An appropriate order from this Court directed to the Trial Court could

facilitate this process and prevent the risk of undue prejudice from ‘piling on’.”3

We find that the trial court erred by rendering an in globo ruling on the

admissibility of the voluminous records attached to the State’s motion. However,

from our cursory review of these voluminous records, it appears that some of these

items may in fact be res gestae/404(B) evidence that could possibly be admissible

at trial. Accordingly, we grant this writ application, vacate the ruling of the trial

court and remand the matter with instructions that the trial court require the State

to identify specifically the items that it desires a res gestae/404(B) ruling on in

order that the trial court can properly rule as to each specific item.

The State’s request for a Stay of proceedings in this matter is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 7th day of April, 2023.

RAC
SMC
JGG

3
Other than referencing a vague “appropriate order,” the State does not suggest any specific
Order that this Court could issue that would provide any useful guidance to the trial court in
making its ultimate determination as to which specific items, or number of items, might be
allowed at trial so as to “prevent the risk of undue prejudice from ‘piling on’.”
3

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
CORNELIUS E. REGAN, PRO TEM 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 04/07/2023 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:

23-K-179
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable E. Adrian Adams (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Relator) Gregory Q. Carter (Respondent)
Darren A. Allemand (Relator)

MAILED
Joseph L. Perez (Respondent) Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr. (Relator)
Price Quenin (Respondent) District Attorney
Attorney at Law Twenty-Fourth Judicial District
848 Second Street 200 Derbigny Street
Third Floor Gretna, LA 70053
Gretna, LA 70053