State v. Kotwitz
1989 WL 100415, 549 So. 2d 351 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of corrupt influencing requires proof that the defendant intended to influence a public official's conduct in relation to their official duties. A scheme intended solely to discredit and remove an official from office, without any expectation that the official will alter their official actions, does not satisfy the statute's specific intent requirement.
Facts:
- Jerry Kotwitz heard rumors that a car salesman, Bernard Presley, possessed damaging information about the recently elected District Attorney, James A. Norris, Jr.
- Kotwitz located Presley and offered to pay him to help 'get [Norris] out of office' by either obtaining scandalous information or planting drugs on him.
- The initial agreement was for Presley to receive a total of $7,000 for his assistance in the scheme.
- Fearing for his safety, Presley, who had no actual information about Norris, contacted DA Norris and agreed to cooperate in an investigation against Kotwitz.
- Working with law enforcement, Presley told Kotwitz he had a contact in the DA's office, Assistant DA Kathy McCoy.
- Kotwitz then proposed a 'test' for McCoy: in exchange for cocaine, she was to arrange for the dismissal of a pending theft charge against Presley.
- Kotwitz gave Presley $125 to purchase the cocaine for McCoy as part of this test.
- The ultimate goal of Kotwitz's scheme was to remove Norris from office, thereby increasing the chances that Kotwitz's associate, J.B. Harrison, would receive a pardon that Norris was expected to oppose.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Jerry Kotwitz in a bill of information with three counts of inciting a felony and two counts of corrupt influencing.
- Following a jury trial in the district court, Kotwitz was found guilty of three counts of inciting a felony, one count of corrupt influencing DA Norris, and one count of attempted corrupt influencing of ADA McCoy.
- The trial court imposed sentences of imprisonment and fines, to be served concurrently.
- Kotwitz, as appellant, appealed his convictions and sentences to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, against the State of Louisiana, as appellee.
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 scheme to discredit a public official and force them from office, without any expectation that the official will change their conduct in relation to their official duties, constitute the crime of 'corrupt influencing' under LSA-R.S. 14:120?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall, C.J.
No. A scheme to discredit and force a public official out of office does not meet the statutory requirement of intending to 'corruptly influence the conduct' of that official in relation to their position, employment, or duty. The evidence showed that Kotwitz's intent was to force Norris from office, not to influence Norris to take or refrain from any official action, such as recommending a pardon for J.B. Harrison. All witness testimony indicated the objective was Norris's removal, not a change in his official conduct. Because the State failed to prove the defendant had the specific intent required by LSA-R.S. 14:120—that is, to have Norris's official conduct influenced—a rational jury should have had a reasonable doubt, and the conviction for corruptly influencing DA Norris must be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of Louisiana's corrupt influencing statute by distinguishing it from general schemes to harm or discredit a public official. It establishes that the prosecution must prove a specific intent to alter an official's conduct in their public capacity, not just an intent to remove them from their position. The ruling sets a higher evidentiary bar for 'corruptly influencing' charges, requiring a direct link between the illicit offer and a desired change in an official's on-the-job actions. Consequently, future prosecutions under this statute will require more than just evidence of a plot against a public figure; they must demonstrate that the plot was aimed at manipulating the official's performance of their duties.
