State v. Lobato
603 So. 2d 739, 1992 WL 155793 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's arrest and subsequent cooperation with authorities do not, by themselves, constitute a withdrawal from a conspiracy for evidentiary purposes; the defendant bears the burden of proving withdrawal through affirmative actions inconsistent with the object of the conspiracy, such as making a full and complete confession.
Facts:
- Daniel Lobato was stopped by a Louisiana State Police trooper for a routine traffic violation.
- During a consent search of the vehicle, the trooper found marijuana gleanings in an empty suitcase.
- Upon his arrest, Lobato produced approximately $18,000 in cash from his person.
- At police headquarters, Lobato admitted he had transported 15-16 pounds of marijuana for Robert Phillips from Texas to Mississippi, delivered it to Gary Veazey, and received the $18,000 from Veazey.
- Lobato agreed to cooperate with the police and participated in a plan to call Phillips and Veazey.
- In recorded phone calls, Lobato told Phillips and Veazey a fabricated story that he had been robbed of the $18,000.
- During these calls, Veazey agreed to meet Lobato to deliver the $3,000 balance owed on the marijuana transaction.
- The day after his cooperation began, Lobato gave a recorded statement claiming he was unaware of any illegal activity and believed he was collecting a legitimate roofing debt.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Daniel Lobato in a state trial court with conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute.
- A jury found Lobato guilty as charged after a trial in which the court admitted recorded telephone conversations into evidence over defense objection.
- The trial court sentenced Lobato to four and one-half years at hard labor plus a fine.
- Lobato, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Lobato, as applicant, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ of certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a defendant's arrest and subsequent cooperation with police automatically constitute withdrawal from a conspiracy, thereby making his co-conspirators' statements in recorded conversations inadmissible as hearsay under the co-conspirator exception?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall, Justice
No. A defendant's arrest and cooperation with police do not automatically constitute withdrawal from a conspiracy. The burden of proof shifts to the defendant to present evidence of his withdrawal after the state has established a prima facie case of conspiracy. To prove withdrawal, a defendant must show affirmative actions inconsistent with the object of the conspiracy, such as making a 'clean breast' through a full confession to authorities. Here, Lobato failed to carry this burden because his subsequent recorded statement, in which he denied any knowledge of the conspiracy, contradicted the idea that he had made a 'clean breast.' Because Lobato did not effectively withdraw, the conspiracy was deemed ongoing for evidentiary purposes, making the statements of his co-conspirators, Phillips and Veazey, admissible under LSA-C.E. Art. 801(D)(3)(b) as they were made in furtherance of the conspiracy's objective.
Dissenting - Calogero, Chief Justice
Yes. The defendant's statements should have been excluded because he was acting as an agent of the police, not in his individual capacity. Furthermore, the defendant's cooperation with police, which was intended to destroy the illegal enterprise and bring the co-conspirators to justice, constituted a withdrawal from the conspiracy. His actions could not have been in furtherance of the conspiracy's goals. Therefore, the statements of Veazey and Phillips were inadmissible hearsay, and their introduction was not harmless error.
Dissenting - Lemmon, Justice
Yes. The statements should have been excluded because the defendant had withdrawn from the conspiracy at the time they were made. His affirmative act of cooperating with the police to lure his co-conspirators into a trap was sufficient evidence of his withdrawal. The statements were not made in furtherance of the conspiracy but to defeat it. Moreover, even if technically admissible, the recordings were unfairly prejudicial due to the language used and their potential to confuse the jury, and their admission was not harmless error.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high evidentiary bar for a defendant claiming withdrawal from a conspiracy. The ruling establishes that mere cooperation with law enforcement, particularly when followed by a retraction or denial of culpability, is insufficient to meet the defendant's burden of proving withdrawal. This strengthens the prosecution's ability to use co-conspirator statements made after one member's arrest, preserving the admissibility of crucial evidence obtained through police stings involving a captured conspirator. Future defendants must demonstrate a complete and unequivocal repudiation of the conspiracy, such as a full and consistent confession, to render subsequent co-conspirator statements inadmissible.
