State v. Haarala
398 So.2d 1093 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of other criminal acts is admissible under the res gestae exception if the acts are an inseparable part of the charged offense, forming one continuous transaction, and are so intertwined that the state could not accurately present its case without referencing them.
Facts:
- At approximately 3:45 a.m. on March 19, 1980, a Bogalusa resident was awakened by someone beating on the back door of Starnes Drugstore.
- The resident alerted the Bogalusa Police, and two officers arrived at an alleyway behind the drugstore.
- The officers discovered Terry Paul Haarala crouched behind an air conditioning unit.
- When the officers asked Haarala to stand up, a pipe cutter fell from his overall pocket.
- The officers then found a hole cut in the fence enclosing the adjacent J. K. Hardware Store's pipe yard.
- They observed tennis shoe tracks in the greasy pipe yard and noted that Haarala was wearing tennis shoes covered with similar mud and grease.
- A ball peen hammer was found on Haarala's person and a pneumatic scathing chisel was found on the ground near him.
- The owner of the J. K. Hardware Store later identified the hammer, chisel, and pipe cutter as belonging to his store.
Procedural Posture:
- Terry Paul Haarala was charged in separate bills of information with simple burglary of the J. K. Hardware Store and attempted simple burglary of Starnes Drugstore.
- On the day trial was set to begin, the state announced it would only prosecute the hardware store burglary charge.
- In the state trial court, the prosecutor referred to the attempted drugstore break-in during his opening statement.
- The defense objected and moved for a mistrial, but the trial court denied the motion.
- A jury found Haarala guilty of simple burglary of the J. K. Hardware Store.
- Haarala (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the state's highest court.
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 the admission of evidence of a contemporaneous, uncharged crime violate the general prohibition against other crimes evidence when that evidence is necessary to complete the story and provide the immediate context of the charged offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis, Justice
No, the admission of evidence of a contemporaneous, uncharged crime does not violate the prohibition against other crimes evidence when it is part of the res gestae. The court held that the general prohibition does not bar the admission of criminal acts that are an inseparable part of the whole deed. In this case, the attempted break-in of the drugstore and the burglary of the hardware store formed one continuous transaction. The evidence of the disturbance at the drugstore was necessary to complete the story of the crime, explain the immediate context of happenings, and show why the police were called to the scene. Its purpose was not to depict the defendant as a bad person, but to allow the state to accurately present its case. Because the events were so closely connected in time and place, they were admissible as res gestae, and the defendant was not unfairly surprised.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the res gestae exception to the general rule against admitting evidence of other crimes. It clarifies that when criminal acts are inextricably linked in a single, continuous transaction, evidence of an uncharged crime can be introduced to provide necessary context for the charged offense. This precedent allows prosecutors to present a complete and coherent narrative to the jury, even if it involves mentioning criminal conduct for which the defendant is not on trial. The decision emphasizes that the exception's purpose is narrative completeness, not character assassination, thereby maintaining the core principle of preventing undue prejudice.
