State of Louisiana Versus Maynor Ramos

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-K-479

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

MAYNOR RAMOS COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

November 08, 2024

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE MAYNOR RAMOS

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER,
DIVISION "I", NUMBER 23-196

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Marc E. Johnson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

WRIT DENIED

In this writ application, defendant, Maynor Ramos, seeks this Court’s

supervisory review of the district court’s August 19, 2024 judgment granting the

State of Louisiana’s notice of intent to introduce other crimes evidence under La.

C.E. art. 404(B) pertaining a prior July 2022 altercation involving Ramos. For the

following reasons, this writ application is denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 4, 2023, a Jefferson Parish Grand Jury returned an indictment

charging defendant, Maynor Ramos,1 with the second-degree murder of Carlos

Galvez, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 (count one), attempted second-degree

murder of A.G., a seventeen-year-old,2 a violation of La. R.S. 14:27:30.1 (count

1
On the same indictment, the State charged Carolina Andrea Morales with the same three offenses.
On May 22, 2024 the district court granted a motion for severance filed by the State.
2
In this writ application, the initials of the minor child are used to protect and maintain the privacy
of the minor child involved in this proceeding. See Uniform Rules–Courts of Appeal, Rule 5–1 and Rule
5–2.

24-K-479

two), and obstruction of justice in a murder investigation by tampering with

evidence used in a murder and attempted murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1

(count three). Ramos pled not guilty.

On January 8, 2023, Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (“JPSO”) deputies

responded to a shooting at the La Rumba Bar & Grill (“La Rumba”), in Harvey,

Louisiana. Upon arriving, the officers found two victims—one deceased from a

fatal gunshot wound, and another with a gunshot wound to the neck. Law

enforcement’s investigation, including eyewitness accounts, revealed that a

Hispanic male and a Hispanic female entered into a heated verbal argument that

escalated, which led to the shooters arming themselves and the shooting of the

victims. Ramos and Morales, who both fled the scene, were identified by multiple

witnesses as the perpetrators. There were no other firearms recovered at the scene.

Forensic analysis confirmed that two separate 9mm firearms were used to shoot the

victims. Ramos and Morales were later arrested on warrants for second-degree

murder, attempted second-degree murder, and obstruction of justice. According to

the State, both defendants downplayed their actions, claiming self-defense or

manslaughter.

Subsequent to the indictment, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce

other crimes evidence pursuant to La. C.E. art. 404(B). Specifically, the State

noticed its intent to introduce evidence of a prior altercation occurring at a

nightclub in July 2022, involving both Ramos and Morales, which escalated to the

point where one of them allegedly fired a gun. According to the State, the

evidence is admissible as it fits squarely within La. C.E. art. 404(B) in that these

alleged prior bad acts tend to prove intent, modus operandi, opportunity, and

identify, in addition to rebutting any claim of self-defense or defense of others.

In response, Ramos filed an opposition to the State’s notice, arguing for the

exclusion of evidence of the prior July 2022 altercation, asserting the probative

2

value of the evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect and that the State has

not proven its relevance to the instant case.

A hearing on the State’s 404(B) motion was held on July 18, 2024, and the

district court took the matter under advisement.3 On August 19, 2024, the district

court issued judgment, granting the State’s 404(B) notice as to both Ramos and

Morales regarding the July 2022 incident occurring at a nightclub involving both

defendants. The district court determined that ample evidence existed between the

two incidents as Ramos and Morales were alleged to have similarly escalated a

verbal altercation at a local bar into a physical altercation and subsequent shooting.

The court ruled that the prior incident constituted evidence of intent, knowledge,

identity, and/or absence of mistake or accident. The court further ruled the value

of the evidence is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

This writ application followed.4

DISCUSSION

Applicable Law

A trial court’s ruling as to the admissibility of other crimes evidence is

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Kiger, 13-69 (La. App. 5 Cir.

10/30/13), 128 So.3d 552, 557. Generally, evidence of other crimes or bad acts

committed by a criminal defendant is not admissible at trial. State v. Neveaux, 23-

3
The State filed a single notice of intent addressing both Ramos and Morales, and a joint hearing
took place on July 12, 2024, resulting in one judgment.
4
It is noted that the ruling in this case was on August 19, 2024. Defense counsel filed a notice of
intent to seek supervisory review on September 17, 2024, requesting thirty days from that date, or until
October 17, 2024, to file a writ application. The district court granted counsel’s notice of intent and set a
return date to be filed “within the delays allowed by law.” Instead, the district court should have specified
a date for the return as required by Uniform Rules–Courts of Appeal, Rule 4–3, which provides that the
return date should not exceed thirty days from the date of the ruling, and “[i]n all cases the judge shall set
a specific return date.” Here, the thirty dates from the August 19, 2024 ruling elapsed on September 18,
2024. Defense counsel filed a motion for extension on September 27, 2024, which was granted giving
counsel until October 14, 2024, to file the writ, which was ultimately filed on that date. The district court
does not have the authority to grant an untimely motion for an extension of the return date that has been
filed outside the original or extended return date period. See State v. Fisher, 18-K-98 (La. App. 5 Cir.
3/19/18) (unpublished writ disposition), writ denied, 18-608 (La. 6/15/18), 257 So.3d 676. See also State
v. Goppelt, 08-576 (La. 10/21/08), 993 So.2d 1188, where the Supreme Court held that refusing to
consider an application under Rule 4–3 should apply to cases sparingly, especially when the State does
not object. Here, the State urged no objection to defense counsel’s delayed filing.
3

477 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/10/23), 377 So.3d 749, 757, writ denied, 23-1633 (La.

3/12/24), 381 So.3d 56. Courts may not admit evidence of other crimes, wrongs,

or acts of a criminal defendant in order to show that the defendant is a person of

bad character who has acted in conformity therewith. La. C.E. art. 404(B); State v.

Hardy, 14-1569 (La. 11/21/14), 154 So.3d 537, 538. However, when evidence of

other crimes tends to prove a material issue and has independent relevance other

than to show that the defendant is of bad character, it may be admitted by certain

statutory and jurisprudential exceptions to this rule. State v. Jenkins, 18-645 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 4/3/19), 267 So.3d 203, 207, writ denied, 19-1223 (La. 10/21/19), 280

So.3d 1169. The State may introduce evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts if

it establishes an independent and relevant reason for its admissibility, such as to

show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or

absence of mistake or accident. La. C.E. art. 404(B); Hardy, supra. The evidence

must tend to prove a material fact at issue or to rebut a defendant’s defense. State

v. Martin, 377 So.2d 259, 263 (La. 1979). Courts have allowed the admission of

other crimes evidence to rebut a defendant’s self-defense claim. State v. Gasser,

18-531 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/3/19), 275 So.3d 976, 993.

If the element of intent is at issue, evidence of similar unrelated conduct is

admissible to negate a defense theory that the accused acted without criminal intent

and to show that he intended to commit the charged offense. State v. Kennedy, 17-

724 (La. 9/29/17), 227 So.3d 243, 244. The supreme court has recognized the

principle that where the element of intent is regarded as an essential ingredient of

the crime charged, it is proper to admit proof of similar but disconnected crimes to

show the intent with which the act charged was committed. State v. Jackson, 625

So.2d 146, 150 (La. 1993). For evidence of a prior criminal act to be admitted as

proof of intent, however, three prerequisites must be satisfied: (1) the prior act

must be similar, (2) there must be a real and genuine contested issue of intent, and

4

(3) the probative value of the evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect.

Kennedy, supra.

The fact that the other acts or crimes happened some time before the offense

for which defendant is on trial is not sufficient, in and of itself, to require the

exclusion of the evidence. State v. Guidroz, 98-377 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/14/98),

721 So.2d 480, 486, writ denied, 98-2874 (La. 2/26/99), 738 So.2d 1061.

Remoteness in time, in most cases, is only one factor to be considered when

determining whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial

effect. Generally, a lapse in time will go to the weight of the evidence rather than

to its admissibility. Id.

Finally, the probative value of the extraneous evidence must outweigh its

prejudicial effect. State v. Page, 08-531 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/10/09), 28 So.3d 442,

451, writ denied, 09-2684 (La. 6/4/10), 38 So.3d 299. Although relevant, evidence

may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of

unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by

considerations of undue delay, or waste of time. La. C.E. art. 403. Clearly,

evidence of other crimes or bad acts is prejudicial since all evidence which tends to

make it more probable than not that an individual committed a criminal offense is

necessarily prejudicial. State v. Williams, 02-645 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/26/02), 833

So.2d 497, 507, writ denied, 02-3182 (La. 4/25/03), 842 So.2d 398. However, the

underlying policy is not to prevent prejudice, since evidence of other crimes is

always prejudicial, but to protect against unfair prejudice when the evidence is

only marginally relevant to the determination of guilt of the charged crime. Id. As

used in the balancing test, “prejudicial” limits the introduction of probative

evidence of prior misconduct only when it is unduly and unfairly prejudicial. State

v. Rodgers, 16-14 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/26/16), 202 So.3d 1189, 1201, writs denied,

16-2189 (La. 9/15/17), 225 So.3d 479 and 16-2093 (La. 1/29/18), 235 So.3d 1104.

5

Absent an abuse of discretion, a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence

pursuant to La. C.E. art. 404(B)(1) will not be disturbed. Jenkins, supra.

The July 2022 nightclub incident and shooting involving Morales and
Ramos

In its notice of intent, the State sought to introduce evidence of a prior 2022

nightclub altercation involving both Ramos and Morales during which a gun was

fired and a person was injured. The State averred that on January 11, 2023, a

witness, A.D., contacted the JPSO after seeing an online post about the arrests of

Ramos and Morales for the shootings at La Rumba, and advised officers that she

recognized the couple from a prior altercation occurring in July of 2022. A.D.

reported encountering Morales, whom she suspected was having an affair with her

husband, at a nightclub. A.D. described that a verbal altercation that turned

physical ensued, during which she heard a “pop.” She claimed she saw Ramos

throw a chair at her. She did not see Morales with a firearm. A.D. reported that

she lost sight of the defendants, but later discovered a wound to her hip consistent

with a graze wound from a gunshot. During the investigation, officers found a

damaged projectile on the floor of the nightclub, subsequently determined to be a

.40 caliber round. Attached to the State’s notice of intent was the Gretna police

report and a supplemental police report from the July 2022 incident, the JPSO

Crime Lab Firearms report, and A.D.’s identification of Ramos and Morales.

In his writ application, Ramos argues the district erred in permitting the

State to introduce evidence of Ramos’ alleged involvement in the nightclub

incident. Counsel explains that although Ramos and Morales were present during

a fight in which a weapon was allegedly fired, no evidence connects Ramos to the

shooting. Counsel argues that with fifty to sixty people present, no witnesses

identified Ramos as possessing a gun or directly involved in the shooting. Counsel

further argued that the 2022 incident bears no relation to the January 2023 offense,

6

making the trial court’s admission of this La. C.E. art. 404(B) evidence improper.

In short, Ramos argues there is simply no connection, and thus, the district court

erred in its determination that the similarities between the incidents supported the

admissibility of the evidence without a substantial risk of unfair prejudice.

In response, the State avers that the similarities between defendants’ current

and prior crimes demonstrate their intent in the instant case. The State contends

that proving defendants’ identities as perpetrators of the prior crimes helps

establish their identities in the current offense. Additionally, the State argues that

the repeated pattern of escalating verbal disputes into life-threatening situations,

particularly at nightclubs or bars, shows a lack of mistake or accident and

undermines defendants’ claims of self-defense.

The State provides that defense counsel plans to raise a self-defense claim

and argues that courts have allowed other crimes evidence to rebut such claims.

While acknowledging that it was never conclusively established whether Morales

or Ramos fired a gun in the 2022 incident, the State argues this overlooks the lower

standard of proof required for admitting Article 404(B) evidence. The State

highlights the district court’s finding of significant circumstantial evidence that one

of the defendants fired the gun in a nightclub in 2022. The State argues that a prior

nightclub altercation is admissible to rebut self-defense in the current case and

contends the district court correctly allowed evidence of the 2022 incident, citing

to State v. Gasser, 18-531 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/3/19), 275 So.3d 976.

Here, the evidence shows that both Ramos and Morales were involved in

altercations that escalated into physical confrontations occurring in bar or

nightclub settings. As to the charged offense occurring on January 8, 2023, at La

Rumba, a verbal dispute escalated into a shooting where witnesses confirmed that

Ramos and Morales were the perpetrators. Similarly, in the July 2022 incident, a

confrontation between Morales and the victim at a nightclub also escalated into

7

physical violence, during which it is suspected, based on the testimony of

eyewitnesses and the grazing wound sustained by the victim, that a firearm was

discharged. Comparing the factual circumstances of the incidents, even though

there are some differences between the January 8, 2023 charged offense and the

July 2022 incident,5 when considering Ramos’ involvement in both confrontations

and the escalation of conflicts into violence, we find sufficient factual similarities

certainly exist. We find no abuse of the district court’s discretion in determining

the evidence of the July 2022 incident is admissible to refute Ramos’ self-defense

claim. See Gasser, supra; Sate v. Clanton, 19-316 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/6/19), 285

So.3d 31. Although evidence of the prior offense is necessarily prejudicial, we

note that this other crime evidence is not unduly and unfairly prejudicial, and is

merely one factor that will go to the weight of the evidence rather than its

admissibility.

For these reasons, Ramos’ writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 8th day of November, 2024.

SMC
MEJ
JJM

5
The January 2023 incident resulted in one fatality and another critical injury, while the July 2022 incident
involved a graze wound. Additionally, it appears that Morales and Ramos in the January 2023 offense were
unfamiliar with the victims prior to the incident, whereas Morales and the July 2022 victim (A.D.) had prior
interactions. The January incident involved two firearms, while witnesses in the July 2022 altercation reported only
a “pop” without confirmed evidence of gunfire. Moreover, the January 2023 incident began with a verbal exchange
leading to a shooting it in the parking lot of La Rumba, whereas the July 2022 incident began with a physical
altercation inside a nightclub involving a thrown chair and a reported gunshot wound.
8

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
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL 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 11/08/2024 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:

24-K-479
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Nancy A. Miller (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Mark D. Plaisance (Relator) Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)
Darren A. Allemand (Respondent)

MAILED
Remy V. Starns (Relator) Letita J. Parker-Davis (Relator) Marcus J. Plaisance (Relator)
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
301 Main Street 848 Second Street Post Office Box 1123
Suite 700 Gretna, LA 70053 Prairieville, LA 70769
Baton Rouge, LA 70825

Leo M. Aaron (Respondent)
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
(Respondent)
District Attorney
Twenty-Fourth Judicial District
200 Derbigny Street
Gretna, LA 70053