State v. Mosby
581 So. 2d 1060, 1991 WL 91066 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to present relevant evidence that a third party may have committed the crime, including evidence of similar offenses committed by that person, and the admissibility of this evidence is not contingent upon the defendant presenting an alibi.
Facts:
- On March 9, 1987, Guy McFarland went to a Louisiana National Bank (LNB) to make a deposit for his seafood business.
- As he exited his car, McFarland observed a young, black male, later identified as James Kevin Mosby, who made eye contact and then quickly walked away.
- Inside the bank lobby, the same individual approached McFarland from behind, snatched his bank bag containing approximately $4,000, and fled.
- As the bag was taken, McFarland spun around and saw the perpetrator's side and facial profile.
- McFarland pursued the perpetrator, who shattered a locked glass door before escaping in a car.
- A few weeks after the robbery, police showed McFarland a photographic lineup containing a suspect named Michael Jackson, but McFarland did not identify anyone.
- Subsequently, Mosby's former girlfriend, Diane Johnson, informed police that Mosby had admitted to committing a bank robbery.
- Police then prepared a new photo lineup including Mosby's picture, which McFarland immediately and positively identified as the perpetrator.
Procedural Posture:
- James Kevin Mosby was charged by bill of information with simple robbery in a Louisiana trial court.
- Mosby entered a plea of not guilty.
- Before and during the jury trial, the defense sought to introduce evidence that another individual, Michael Jackson, had committed similar robberies, but the trial court excluded this evidence.
- The defendant's motion to suppress the victim's photographic and physical lineup identifications was denied by the trial court.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Mosby guilty as charged.
- Subsequently, the trial court adjudicated Mosby a second felony habitual offender and sentenced him to fourteen years at hard labor.
- Mosby appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, which is the subject of this opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court commit reversible error by excluding evidence that another individual committed similar robberies in the same area, which the defendant offered to support his defense of mistaken identity?
Opinions:
Majority - Lanier, J.
No. Although the trial court erred in excluding the evidence, the error was harmless and does not require reversal. A defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense, which includes introducing relevant evidence tending to negate the commission of the offense, such as evidence that another person committed similar crimes. The trial court's ruling that such evidence was inadmissible without an alibi defense was erroneous, as no such prerequisite exists. However, the appellate court found this error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The strength of the state's case, particularly the victim's positive and repeated identifications of the defendant, coupled with the victim's explicit failure to identify the other suspect (Michael Jackson) in a prior photo lineup, overwhelmingly supported the conviction. Therefore, the exclusion of the proffered evidence did not contribute to the verdict.
Analysis:
This case affirms the principle that a defendant has a right to introduce evidence of a third party's similar crimes to support a mistaken identity defense, a concept often referred to as 'reverse 404(b)' evidence. The decision clarifies that this right is not dependent on the presentation of a separate alibi defense. However, the court's application of the harmless error doctrine demonstrates that even a clear constitutional error in excluding exculpatory evidence may not lead to reversal if the appellate court deems the remaining evidence of guilt to be overwhelming. This highlights the significant barrier the harmless error standard presents for defendants on appeal.
