Johtre Scott Versus State of Louisiana

JOHTRE SCOTT NO. 23-K-244

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

June 08, 2023

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE JOHTRE SCOTT

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF ST CHARLES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE M. LAUREN
LEMMON, DIVISION "D", NUMBER 21,617

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson

WRIT GRANTED

Relator, Johtre Scott, seeks review of the trial court’s March 23, 2023 ruling,
which granted the State’s original and supplemental “Notice of Intent to Introduce
Evidence Pursuant to Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 404(B).” For the
following reasons, we find that, based on the evidence introduced at the trial court
hearing on the State’s original and supplemental notices, the trial judge abused her
discretion in finding the evidence at issue admissible under La. C.E. art. 404(B).

On March 16, 2022, a St. Charles Parish Grand Jury returned an indictment
charging defendant, Johtre Scott, with the second-degree murder of Darzil
Washington in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 and four counts of attempted second-
degree murder of Darville Washington, Jayvon Lockett, Dwayne Williams, and
B.I. (D.O.B. 7/26/2007), in violation of La. R.S. 14:27:30. The murder and
attempted murders in this case occurred outside of a grocery store in St. Charles
Parish. The ballistics evidence established that two 9mm firearms were used in the
commission of the crime, but neither firearm used in connection with the crime has
been recovered.

On August 11, 2022, defendant filed a “Motion in Limine to Exclude
Evidence Pursuant to Articles 401 et seq. of the Louisiana Code of Evidence.” In
response, the State filed a “Response to Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude
Evidence Pursuant to Articles 401 et seq. of the Louisiana Code of Evidence and
State’s Incorporated Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence Pursuant to Louisiana
Code of Evidence Article 404(B).” In that pleading, the State provided notice that
it sought to introduce evidence seized during the execution of two search warrants
pursuant to La. C.E. art. 404(B) and res gestae to show motive, opportunity, intent,

23-K-244

preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, and absence of mistake or accident. The
evidence recovered in connection with the two search warrants, executed weeks
after the crime at issue, is several firearms and ammunition—none of which has
been determined to be the murder weapon or even the type of firearm or
ammunition used in connection with the crime at issue.

On March 6, 2023, the State filed a “State’s Supplemental Notice of Intent to
Introduce Evidence Pursuant to Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 404(B).” In
its supplemental pleading, the State provided notice that it sought to introduce
evidence of SnapChat videos from defendant’s uncle’s SnapChat account—one
video showing Marcus Isom, defendant’s uncle, by himself, practice shooting in a
wooded area with a weapon, and the second video showing Marcus Isom and
defendant riding in a vehicle together with defendant brandishing a firearm and
pretending to fire it, with audio that appears to state, “N’s ain’t playin’.”1
Additionally, the State provided notice that it sought to introduce evidence of two
separate incidents in St. John the Baptist Parish involving defendant’s and his
uncle’s possession of or access to various firearms—none of which have been
determined to be the weapon used in the commission of the murder or attempted
murders in this case—and one incident involving defendant’s arrest for alleged
possession of a stolen firearm.2

In support of its notices, the State argued that defendant and the murder
victim, Darzil Washington, had “beef.” The State’s theory of the case is that the
murder at issue was a “retaliation” killing against the Washington family for the
prior killing of Jerome Isom, defendant’s mother’s long-term boyfriend who raised
defendant like a father, and the prior shooting injury of Marcus Isom, defendant’s
uncle. The trial court found that all evidence at issue is admissible at trial under La.
C.E. art. 404(B) to prove the motive of retaliation as argued by the State. 3

Generally, evidence of other crimes or bad acts committed by a criminal
defendant is not admissible at trial. La. C.E. art. 404(B)(1); State v. Prieur, 277
So.2d 126, 128 (La. 1973). However, when such evidence tends to prove a material
issue and has independent relevance other than showing that the defendant is of
bad character, it may be admitted by certain statutory and jurisprudential
exceptions to the exclusionary rule. State v. Gomez-Colon, 20-302 (La. App. 5 Cir.
12/22/21), 334 So.3d 975, 984, writ denied, 22-125 (La. 4/20/22), 336 So.3d 466.

La. C.E. art. 404(B)(l) provides:

Except as provided in Article 412, evidence of other crimes,
wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in
order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however,
be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity,
intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or
accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in

1
The state contends that a relative of the victim recorded the SnapChat videos posted on Marcus Isom’s account
from her cell phone and will testify to authenticate the videos. The second video at issue also reflects an assault-
style weapon in the backseat of the vehicle in which defendant and Marcus Isom are riding.
2
One incident occurred close in time to the SnapChat video of Marcus Isom practice shooting in a wooded area of
St. John the Baptist Parish and the incident report tends to show, as argued by the State, that defendant was present
in the wooded area while practice shooting occurred with Marcus Isom.
3
On October 7, 2022, a hearing was held, and the trial court denied defendant’s Motion in Limine. Concerning the
State’s original Notice of Intent, it does not appear the trial judge ruled on the State’s original notice at that time. At
the March 23, 2023 hearing, the trial judge discussed the State’s original notice and stated that she would “open it
back up” and that she would “put it all together.”
2

a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, of
the nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial for such
purposes, or when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part
of the act or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding.

La. C.E. art. 404(B)(1) provides for the admissibility of other crimes
evidence if the State establishes an independent and relevant reason for its
admission. State v. Horn, 22-1722 (La. 2/14/23), 354 So.3d 1222, 1223. Evidence
of past crimes is independently relevant under La. C.E. art. 404(B)(1) when the
evidence of another crime is an essential part of the criminal act being prosecuted.
State v. Brown, 17-348 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/20/17), 235 So.3d 1314, 1326, writ
denied, 18-158 (La. 11/5/18), 256 So.3d 276, cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 139 S.Ct.
2033, 204 L.Ed.2d 233 (2019). Even when the other crimes evidence is offered for
a purpose allowed under Article 404(B)(1), the evidence is not admissible unless it
tends to prove a material fact at issue or to rebut a defendant’s defense. State v.
Ard, 20-221 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/28/21), 347 So.3d 1046, 1055. Additionally, the
probative value of the extraneous evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect.
State v. Gomez-Colon, 334 So.3d at 984.

Evidence that constitutes an integral part of the crime, formerly known as
“res gestae,” is admissible without any prior notice to the defense. State v. Garcie,
17-609 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/11/18), 242 So.3d 1279, 1284–85. A close connexity
between the charged and uncharged conduct is required to ensure that “the purpose
served by admission of the other crimes evidence is not to depict the defendant as a
bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its
immediate context of happenings near in time and place.” Id.

Further, under certain circumstances, evidence of certain gang affiliation and
rivalries may be deemed admissible to show the motive for a defendant’s actions
that caused injury or death to a victim, who is a member of a rival gang. See State
v. Walker, 16-293 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/14/16), 206 So.3d 474, 484, writ denied, 17-
0190 (La. 9/29/17), 227 So.3d 284 (“[the State’s] notice also provided additional
references to reported incidents of alleged violence between the two gangs the
State intended to introduce at trial.”).

In this case, although the State set forth a persuasive argument at the hearing
on the State’s notices concerning the rivalry between the Washington and Isom
families to support admissibility to prove the motive of retaliation under La. C.E.
art. 404(B), a review of the evidence sought to be deemed admissible at trial does
not establish any connection between the alleged rival families. Specifically, no
evidence of the prior alleged murder of Jerome Isom or the prior shooting of
defendant’s uncle, Marcus Isom, was introduced or sought to be deemed
admissible at trial. Further, the State failed to introduce or seek to introduce any
evidence establishing any connection between the Washington family and the prior
alleged murder of Jerome Isom and the prior shooting of Marcus Isom. The
evidence sought to be introduced does not establish any connection between the
two alleged rival families. Moreover, the evidence sought to be introduced is not
an integral part of the crime charged, nor does it “complete the story of the crime
on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.”
State v. Garcie, 242 So.3d at 185.

Upon thorough review of the writ application and the attachments thereto,
and the opposition filed by the State, we find that the State failed to meet its burden

3

to prove the admissibility of the prejudicial evidence at issue. Accordingly, we
find the trial judge abused her discretion in granting the State’s notices of intent
and we grant the writ, reverse the trial court’s March 23, 2023 ruling granting the
State’s original and supplemental “Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence Pursuant
to Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 404(B),” and remand this matter to the trial
court for further proceedings.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 8th day of June, 2023.

FHW
JGG
MEJ

4

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 06/08/2023 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-244
E-NOTIFIED
29th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable M. Lauren Lemmon (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Cristy Guzman (Relator)

MAILED
Louis G. Authement (Respondent) Sarah Chervinsky (Relator) Jeffrey Hufft (Relator)
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
13919 River Road 1820 St. Charles Avenue 3500 North Causeway Boulevard
Suite 300 Suite 212 Suite 185
Luling, LA 70070 New Orleans, LA 70130 Metairie, LA 70002

Hon. Honorable Joel T. Chaisson, II
(Respondent)
District Attorney
Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court
Post Office Box 680
Hahnville, LA 70057

-----------
I
SENDER· COrl!PLFTE THIS SECTION

• ~ltems1,2,and3.
1
• Prtnt ycxw name and address on the mverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mallpleoe,
or on the front If space permits.
1. Article Addressed to: D. Is addn:iss different from Item 1?
If YB>, enter delivery address below:
Hon. Honorable Joel T. Chaisson, II
District Attorney
Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court
Post Office Box 680
Hahnville, LA 70057
E 1
23-K-244 06-08-23

IIlllllll llll llll IllIIII Il l Ill IIl IIll Ill Ill
9590 9402 2434 6249 3634 20
3. Service Type
0 It Signalln
ult Slgnllbn fleelrtcllld Dallvery
Certllled MaD
0 CelUlled Mel Reatrtoled Dellwly
-...,.......,....--..,-.....,..........,,,,.---:--.,...---,.-...,.....,~-........- - - 1 O Collect on DellYely
aO Pllol1ty Mall E>cpr-e
0 i;teglstwed Mail"'

Allum Reolf?t for
Mall Rll8lrlcted

? ArtldA N11mhAr ff nm...., frnm UU'Vlrt> r..N>n
Men:hllndlee
0 Collect o n Dellvtry Restricted Dehay 0 Signature Conftrmatjon"'
0
=:i~ "
0
701b 2D7D DODD 0954 7998 ::AeltrictedOellYery
~ PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Oomestlc Return Receipt

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION

• Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and addr8ss on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back Of the mallplece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
Jeffrey Hufft
Attorney at Law
3500 North Causeway Boulevard
Suite 185
Metairie, LA 70002
23-K-244 06-08-23

II lllllll llll 111111111111111111111111111111111
9590 9402 2434 6249 3634 13

· PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 753G-02-Cl00-9053