State of Louisiana v. Rodney Ian Barnes

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-576

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

RODNEY IAN BARNES

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, DOCKET NO. C 16783
HONORABLE ERIC R. HARRINGTON, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Jimmie C. Peters, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Edward K. Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 1641
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602-1641
(337) 491-0570
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Rodney Ian Barnes

Van Kyzar
District Attorney—Tenth Judicial District
Charles W. Seaman
Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Box 838
Natchitoches, Louisiana 71458-0838
(318) 357-2214
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

GENOVESE, Judge.

In this criminal case, Defendant, Rodney Ian Barnes, appeals his second

degree murder conviction, alleging that the trial court erred in denying his motion

for new trial. For the following reasons, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

During a domestic argument, Defendant shot his girlfriend, Chackawanda

Beard, in the presence of her two teenage daughters. She died as a result of the

gunshot wound.

Defendant was charged with the second degree murder of Ms. Beard on

July 29, 2010. He was originally tried for the shooting death of the victim in

March 2011, and was found guilty of second degree murder; however, in State v.

Barnes, 11-1242 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/2/12), 93 So.3d 666, this court vacated the

conviction and sentence and remanded the matter to the trial court for a new trial.

Subsequent thereto, a jury trial commenced on September 18, 2012, following

which the jury found Defendant guilty as charged by an unanimous verdict.

Defendant filed a “MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO LA CCP 851”

on September 26, 2012. A hearing was held on October 24, 2012, following which

the trial court denied the motion in open court. On November 28, 2012, Defendant

was sentenced to life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation, or

suspension of sentence. Defendant has timely perfected an appeal.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for

errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find no

errors patent.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In his sole assignment of error, Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in

denying his motion for new trial. In his motion, Defendant alleged that the

prosecutor “improperly placed into the potential jury’s mind the fact that the

defendant was in jail at the time of his trial.”

During voir dire, when asked by the trial court if any of the prospective

jurors knew Defendant, one of the jurors answered that he knew both Defendant

and his attorney, Jason Methvin. When asked how he knew Defendant, the

prospective juror answered, “Uh, did time.” Later, the prosecutor, Lala Sylvester,

asked, “Mr. Wilson, number 5 on the front row please. Uh, Mr. Wilson[,] you had

stated that you knew Mr. Barnes because ya’ll were incarcerated together?”

Mr. Wilson answered affirmatively. Defense counsel then objected, and a bench

conference was conducted. Following the bench conference, the State continued

questioning potential jurors.

At the hearing on Defendant’s motion for a new trial, Defendant’s counsel

argued:

Uh, during that trial, Your Honor, with the second [sic] grounds
for the new trial is that injustice was caused by the trial [sic] when the
State had in fact solicited from a potential juror that he in fact had
spent time in jail with Mr. Barnes. At that time, I did a
contemporaneous objection. Uh, I believe the . . . contemporaneous
objection and a move [sic] for a mistrial, based upon the fact that such
a remark was at least an indirect comment, uh, as to the . . .
Mr. Barnes’ other crimes, because it did not specifically state that he
was being held in jail for this particular crime or for another one.

The State responded: “[T]he comment that was made was . . . I understand you

said that you knew Mr. Barnes in jail. It did not say, Mr. Barnes is in jail at this

particular time. And the prospective juror had already said that to everyone in the

courtroom.” The trial court concluded:

2

I remember Ms. Sylvester’s comment during voir dire whenever a
juror said something like, you were in jail together or incarcerated at
the same time, or at least it was said, and Mr. Methvin made his
timely objection. And I felt the comment was so vague and so general
that it was not prejudicial. In fact, it’s probably safe for a prospective
juror or a jury to assume that if someone is arrested for murder they
are going to be incarcerated at some time anyway when they are
arrested, at the time of their arrest. And there was no time reference
as to when this occurred. And so, it really wasn’t specific at all. We
had a brief discussion about it as to whether there should be an
admonition or anything like that. And my recollection was,
Mr. Methvin, that we agreed that we shouldn’t admonish the jury
about it or . . . I denied in mistrial [sic]. And we decided not to do an
admonishment, because we didn’t want to raise the issue anymore.
So, I don’t find grounds there for a new trial. And so it’s denied . . . a
mistrial.

In brief, Defendant argues that a mistrial should have been granted pursuant

to La.Code Crim.P. art. 770. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 770, in

pertinent part, provides:

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 a court official, during trial or in argument, refers
directly or indirectly to:

....

(2) Another crime committed or alleged to have been
committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible;

....

An admonition to the jury to disregard the remark or comment
shall not be sufficient to prevent a mistrial. If the defendant, however,
requests that only an admonition be given, the court shall admonish
the jury to disregard the remark or comment but shall not declare a
mistrial.

Defendant contends that the comment severely prejudiced him as it

portrayed him as a repeat offender. Defendant argues that the reference was not

harmless error. However, it is well established jurisprudence in Louisiana that

inadmissible other-crimes evidence is subject to a harmless error analysis. In State

3

v. Peloquin, 04-667, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/17/04), 888 So.2d 393, 397, writ

denied, 04-3170 (La. 4/8/05), 898 So.2d 1280, this court discussed harmless error

in the context of inadmissible other-crimes evidence, as follows:

In State v. Johnson, 94-1379 (La.11/27/95), 664 So.2d 94, the
trial court erroneously admitted other crimes evidence introduced by
the State to attack the credibility of the defendant under La.Code
Evid. art. 609.1. In Johnson, the supreme court held “that the
introduction of inadmissible other crimes evidence results in a trial
error subject to harmless error analysis.” Id. at 102. In its ruling, the
supreme court set out the following regarding the harmless error
analysis:

The history of Louisiana’s harmless error rule
makes clear that there has been one common directive:
appellate courts should not reverse convictions for errors
unless the accused’s substantial rights have been
violated. This comports with the general theory that
“appeals in criminal cases are not granted merely to test
the correctness of the trial court’s ruling, but only to
rectify injuries caused thereby.” State v. Saia, 212
La. 868, 876, 33 So.2d 665, 668 (1947), citing State
v. Cullens, 168 La. 976, 123 So. 645, 648 (1929).

This Court adopted the federal test for harmless
error announced in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18,
87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), as a practical guide
for determining whether substantial rights of the accused
have been violated. See State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421
(La.1980). Chapman tests whether it appears “beyond a
reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not
contribute to the verdict obtained.” 386 U.S. at 24, 87
S.Ct. at 828. An error did not “contribute” to the verdict
when the erroneous trial feature is unimportant in relation
to everything else the jury considered on the issue. Yates
v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 403, 111 S.Ct. 1884, 1893, 114
L.Ed.2d 432 (1991), overruled as to standard of review
for erroneous jury instructions in Estelle v. McGuire, 502
U.S. 62, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

Chapman was refined in Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508
U.S. 275, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993). The
Sullivan inquiry “is not whether, in a trial that occurred
without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been
rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered
in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” Id.,
508 U.S. at 279, 113 S.Ct. at 2081. This Court adopted

4

the Sullivan refinement of Chapman. See State v. Code,
627 So.2d [1373,] 1384; State v. Bourque, 622 So.2d
[198,] 241 fn. 20.

Id. at 100.

Finally, in State v. Chairs, 99-2908, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/7/01), 780

So.2d 1088, 1093, writ denied, 01-892 (La. 2/1/02), 808 So.2d 333 (alteration in

original), the fourth circuit noted:

A mistrial is warranted under La.C.Cr.P. art. 770 when certain
remarks are considered so prejudicial and potentially damaging to a
defendant’s rights that even a jury admonition cannot provide a cure.
State v. Johnson, 94-1379, p. 16 (La.11/27/95), 664 So.2d 94, 101.
Potentially damaging remarks include direct or indirect references to
another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the
defendant, unless that evidence is otherwise admissible.
La.C.Cr.P. art. 770(2). The comment must be within earshot of the
jury and must be made by a judge, district attorney, or other court
official. Id. A comment must be viewed in light of the context in
which it is made and the comment must not arguably point to a prior
crime and must unmistakably point to evidence of another crime.
State v. Edwards, 97-1797, p. 20 (La.7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893, 906,
cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026, 120 S.Ct. 542, 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999).
In addition, the imputation must unambiguously point to the
defendant; and[,] the defendant bears the burden of proving that a
mistrial is warranted. Id. If the elements of Article 770 have not been
satisfied, the decision on the motion for mistrial is governed by
La.C.Cr.P. art. 771. The determination of whether a mistrial is
warranted under the circumstances is within the sound discretion of
the trial judge. Id. at p. 24, 750 So.2d at 908. Under Article 771, the
trial court can grant a mistrial if an admonition is not sufficient to
assure the defendant of a fair trial when a remark or comment made
by the judge is not within the scope of Article 770. A mistrial is
warranted if substantial prejudice will deprive the defendant of a fair
trial. State v. Manuel, 94-0087, 94-0088, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir.
11/30/94), 646 So.2d 489, 491.

“Arguably, the reference to the Defendant [having an alias] may
be a reference to another crime, wrong or bad act, but in order for
such a reference to mandate a mistrial, there must be a distinct or
recognizable reference to another crime alleged to have been
committed by the defendant.” State v. Chambers, 99-679 (La.App. 3
Cir. 1/19/00), 758 So.2d 231, writ denied, 2000-0551 (La.9/22/00),
768 So.2d 600.

5

In the instant case, Defendant has failed to show that there was substantial

prejudice that deprived him of a fair trial. As noted in Chairs, the offending

remark must unmistakably point to evidence of another crime. Also, as argued by

the State at the hearing on Defendant’s motion for a new trial, the prospective

jurors could have reasonably concluded that Defendant was in jail because of the

crime for which he was currently accused. Finally, the evidence in this case was

overwhelming. The victim’s two teenage daughters witnessed the shooting. They

described how he tossed their mother onto the bed and then, holding a gun to her

neck, gave her to the count of five to get up. When she did not, he shot her point

blank. Furthermore, although he claimed that the gun accidently discharged when

he hit her with it, he confessed that he shot her during a domestic fight.

We find that the error was “surely unattributable” to the verdict and that the

trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for a new

trial. There is no merit to this assignment of error.

DISPOSITION

We affirm Defendant’s conviction of second degree murder.

AFFIRMED.

6