State v. Lucas
896 So. 2d 331, 2005 WL 546125 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Excluding a criminal defendant's witnesses for a sequestration violation is a drastic remedy that is constitutionally impermissible without evidence that the defendant consented to or knew of the violation and that the violation substantially prejudiced the opposing party's case.
Facts:
- On May 10, 2003, while stopped at an intersection, Shannon Mack, a police investigator, saw a truck driven by Rondall Lucas, Jr. turn onto the same highway.
- A short distance later, Lucas's truck pulled alongside Mack's vehicle, and Lucas's truck slowed to remain next to hers.
- Mack looked over and saw Lucas with his chin pushed into his chest, his pelvis raised above the window, and his right hand moving up and down on his exposed penis while he looked at her and smiled.
- Mack slammed on her brakes, lost sight of the truck after it turned into a trailer park, and called 911.
- Later, with her husband, Mack located the truck at Lucas's home and identified Lucas to a responding officer as the man who had exposed himself.
- Lucas admitted to the officer that he had seen and waved at Mack, whom he mistook for a friend of his wife's, but he denied exposing himself.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Rondall Lucas, Jr. with obscenity in the trial court.
- Prior to the start of testimony, the trial court placed all witnesses under a sequestration order, instructing them not to discuss the case.
- During the trial, the state alleged that the defendant's witnesses violated the sequestration order by discussing the case in the hallway.
- After a hearing, the trial court found that a violation had occurred and ordered that all of the defendant's witnesses be excluded from testifying.
- The jury subsequently found Rondall Lucas, Jr. guilty as charged.
- Rondall Lucas, Jr. (Appellant) appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, arguing the trial court erred in excluding his witnesses.
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 violate a criminal defendant's constitutional right to present a defense by excluding all of their witnesses for a perceived sequestration violation, without evidence of the defendant's complicity or prejudice to the state?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, J.
Yes, the trial court violates a criminal defendant's constitutional right to present a defense by excluding all witnesses for a perceived sequestration violation without the requisite showing of fault or prejudice. The court made a clear error of law by concluding that disqualification was its only option. Under La. C.E. art. 615(C), disqualification is the most drastic sanction and should only be used when lesser remedies like contempt or jury instructions are insufficient. Citing State v. Jones, the court emphasized that excluding a defense witness without the defendant's consent or knowledge is not constitutionally permissible. The state, as the complaining party, bore the burden of proving not only that a violation occurred but also how it was prejudiced, and it failed to provide any evidence that the witnesses' testimony was tainted or that its ability to cross-examine them was hampered. Because the trial court's ruling effectively abrogated the defendant's constitutional right to call witnesses and present a defense, the conviction must be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces a criminal defendant's constitutional right to present a defense, establishing a high bar for the exclusion of defense witnesses. It clarifies that disqualification for a sequestration violation is a sanction of last resort, not a default penalty. The ruling places a clear burden on the party alleging the violation to demonstrate substantial prejudice, preventing parties from using minor or unproven procedural infractions to cripple an opponent's case. This precedent protects the integrity of the trial process by prioritizing the presentation of evidence over the strict enforcement of procedural rules, especially where a defendant's liberty is at stake.
