State v. Barnes
489 So. 2d 402 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has the discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or waste of time. The erroneous exclusion of evidence may be considered harmless error if there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence would have affected the outcome of the trial.
Facts:
- Between February 7, 1984, and March 15, 1984, Doretha Barnes cashed six personal checks totaling approximately $1,500 at a Food Giant grocery store.
- Barnes wrote the checks on a Northwestern National Bank account in her name that she knew had been previously closed.
- Barnes contended that her now-deceased husband, a drug addict, forced her to write the checks to support his habit.
- Barnes testified that her husband had a history of severely abusing her when he needed money for drugs, including shooting her four times, stabbing her, and burning her with cigarettes.
- On the occasions she cashed the checks, Barnes claimed her husband would sometimes drive her to the store and threaten to kill her if she did not comply, though he sometimes waited in the car or elsewhere in the store.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Doretha Barnes by a bill of information with issuing worthless checks in excess of $500.00.
- Barnes pleaded not guilty and was tried before a six-person jury in the trial court.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict.
- The trial judge sentenced Barnes to serve six months in the Parish Prison.
- Barnes (defendant-appellant) appealed her conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by excluding demonstrative evidence, such as physical scars, intended to corroborate testimony for an affirmative defense of compulsion, when the defendant was already permitted to testify extensively about the abuse that caused the scars?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Bowes
No, the trial court did not commit reversible error by excluding the demonstrative evidence. A trial judge has broad discretion to exclude evidence, even if technically relevant, where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues. Here, the critical evidence for the compulsion defense was the testimony about the abuse, which both Barnes and her daughter provided at length. The scars themselves did not prove who inflicted the wounds or under what circumstances, making their probative value slight compared to the detailed testimony. Furthermore, any error in excluding the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury, having heard the testimony, still rejected the defense, likely due to Barnes's prior forgery convictions and evidence suggesting her husband was not always present to immediately carry out his threats as required by the compulsion statute.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant discretion trial judges have in managing the admission of demonstrative evidence under a balancing test that weighs probative value against prejudicial effect. It illustrates that for an affirmative defense like compulsion, testimony establishing the elements of the defense is paramount, and corroborating physical evidence may be deemed cumulative or of low probative value. The court's application of the harmless error doctrine demonstrates that even a potential evidentiary error will not lead to a reversal if the appellate court is convinced the outcome would have remained the same, particularly where the defendant's credibility is already compromised.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Barnes