State of Louisiana Versus Chris Williamson

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
State of Louisiana

No. 26-K-461

STATE OF LOUISIANA

versus

CHRIS WILLIAMSON

IN RE STATE OF LOUISIANA
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
NGHANA LEWIS, DIVISION "B", No. 22,56

October 01, 2026

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT GRANTED; RULING REVERSED; STAY LIFTED

Defendant, Chris Willamson is charged with second degree

murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1, and obstruction of justice, in

violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1, arising from the February 11, 2022

shooting death of Brandon Morris. In this application, the State of

Louisiana seeks supervisory review of the trial court’s mid-trial ruling

granting defendant’s motion for a mistrial under La. C.Cr.P. art. 770(2).

For context, the transcript reflects that on direct examination, the

State elicited testimony as to Ms. Gray’s recollection of the events of the

night of the shooting. On cross-examination, defense counsel

26-K-461 1

questioned Ms. Gray about a previous interaction at a game night

between Ms. Gray and the defendant—the same prior interaction Ms.

Gray had described in a recorded statement to investigators. On

redirect, the State asked follow-up questions regarding the previous

game night interaction. The defense contemporaneously objected, and

the trial court overruled the objection, finding that the defense had

opened the door to the line of questioning. After her testimony, and

after a recess, the defense moved for a mistrial. The trial court granted

the motion.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 770(2) provides that, upon motion of a defendant,

a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the

hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or court official,

during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to

“[a]nother crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the

defendant as to which evidence is not admissible.”

On review, we find the trial court erred in granting the defense’s

motion for mistrial. A review of the transcripts provided indicate that

the defense “opened the door” during cross examination of the witness

to the line of questioning the State pursued during re-direct

examination of the witness, as the trial court correctly ruled during re-

direct examination of the witness. Also, the witness’s prior statement

to investigators was provided to the defense in discovery long prior to

trial. Further, there is nothing in the transcripts that indicate the

testimony was deliberately elicited by the prosecutor prior to the

defense opening the door to allow such testimony, nor did the State or

witness clearly reference to “another crime committed or alleged to have
2
26-K-461

been committed by the defendant.” Finally, defendant has an adequate

remedy on appeal if convicted.

On the showing made, we grant the writ, reverse the ruling, lift

the stay, and remand for the trial to resume.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 1st day of October, 2026.

TSM
JGG

3
26-K-461

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
State of Louisiana

NO. 26-K-461

STATE OF LOUISIANA

versus

CHRIS WILLIAMSON

JOHNSON, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS
I, respectfully, dissent from the majority disposition that reverses the trial

court’s decision to grant a mistrial under La. C.Cr.P. art. 770 in this matter. On the

showing made, I find that the State of Louisiana failed to show that the trial court

abused its discretion by granting the mistrial.

During the cross-examination of Ms. Gray, defense counsel questioned

whether she had previously spent time with Defendant, Chris Williamson, and his

friend, Toi, before the night Brandon Morris was shot. Ms. Gray testified that they

had previously done a “game night.” Based upon that previous game night, Ms.

Gray was uncomfortable but still chose to drive her friend, Angel, to Toi’s

apartment. On redirect examination, the prosecutor elicited further information

from Ms. Gray about the previous game night. She testified that Defendant took

her car keys after the game night ended, forcing her and Angel to spend the rest of

the night in her car. She was unable to leave until the next morning when

Defendant returned her keys. The prosecutor then questioned Ms. Gray about

reporting the incident to the police, and defense counsel objected to the line of

questioning. After a bench conference was held, the prosecutor asked Ms. Gray

26-K-461 1

one additional question—whether she had shown the police a video recorded from

the previous incident—then indicated that he had no further questions.

Afterwards, defense counsel orally moved for a mistrial, arguing that the

State committed a Brady-Giglio violation by failing to divulge other crimes

evidence against Defendant involving the previous game night. The State

maintained the position that there was no other information to produce regarding

the previous incident, and the line of questioning posed to Ms. Gray was proper

because defense counsel had “opened the door” to the subject of the previous game

night. The trial judge then performed an in-depth inquiry into the State’s discovery

evidence involving the previous game night incident, which included listening to

Ms. Gray’s recorded interview with Detective Pineda. The trial judge concluded

defense counsel opened the door to the State’s questioning of Ms. Gray on redirect

examination. However, after considering the context of State v. Broaden, 99-2124

(La. 2/21/01), 780 So.2d 349, the judge found that testimony elicited from Ms.

Gray was not a harmless error and was highly prejudicial. She held that Defendant

should have been put on notice of the State’s other crimes evidence involving the

previous game night.

Whether a mistrial should be granted is within the sound discretion of the

trial court, and the grant or denial of a motion for mistrial will not be disturbed

absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Licona, 13-543 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/21/14),

141 So.3d 333. Prejudice assessments and rulings on mistrial motions fall to the

sound discretion of the trial court. Broaden, 780 So.2d at 361.

After review, I find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting

Defendant’s motion for mistrial in this matter. The court thoroughly considered

the testimony elicited from Ms. Gray on redirect examination by the State and

determined that it described other crimes evidence against Defendant. The court

further found that the testimony was highly prejudicial to Defendant. The State

2
26-K-461

has failed to show how the trial court abused its sound discretion in making those

determinations. Therefore, I find that the mistrial in this matter should not be

disturbed.

Accordingly, I would deny the writ application.

MEJ

3
26-K-461

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. TRAN
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 10/01/2026 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:

26-K-461
E-NOTIFIED
40th District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Nghana Lewis (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Eusi H. Phillips (Relator) Bridget A. Dinvaut (Relator)
Brady Skinner, III (Respondent)

MAILED