State v. Rodriguez
2003 WL 118366, 839 So. 2d 106 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's order preventing a defendant from consulting with his attorney during a short recess, such as a lunch break occurring in the middle of cross-examination, does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. This is permissible to protect the truth-seeking function of cross-examination, as it is presumed nothing but the ongoing testimony will be discussed.
Facts:
- On the night of August 31, 1997, Danny Heiness was shot and killed and Danny Landry was shot in the hand in the parking lot of a bowling alley.
- Multiple eyewitnesses described the shooter as wearing blue jean overalls, a black "cango" hat, and a gold cross pendant.
- Daniel Landry and Jeffrey Clark identified Luis Rodriguez as the shooter from a photographic lineup and later in court.
- During a search of Rodriguez's residence, police seized a pair of denim overalls and a gold cross, which witnesses identified as items worn by the shooter.
- Another individual, Jorge Serrano, testified that he, not Rodriguez, was the shooter and that he acted in self-defense.
- The State introduced letters exchanged between Rodriguez and Serrano in prison, suggesting they had conspired for Serrano to take responsibility for the murder.
- Rodriguez testified in his own defense, denying his involvement and claiming he was at home at the time of the shooting.
- During the State's cross-examination of Rodriguez, the trial judge ordered a one hour and forty-minute lunch recess.
Procedural Posture:
- Luis Rodriguez was charged in a bill of indictment with one count of second-degree murder and one count of attempted second-degree murder in the trial court for the Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana.
- The trial judge denied Rodriguez's pretrial motions to suppress identification, evidence, and his statement.
- Following a jury trial, Rodriguez was found guilty as charged on both counts.
- The trial judge denied Rodriguez's motion for a new trial, which was based on alleged jury misconduct.
- The trial court sentenced Rodriguez to life imprisonment for the murder and fifty years for the attempted murder.
- After the State filed a multiple offender bill, the trial judge found Rodriguez to be a second felony offender, vacated the fifty-year sentence, and imposed an enhanced sentence of seventy-five years.
- Rodriguez, as defendant-appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
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 order prohibiting a defendant from having any contact with his attorney during a one hour and forty-minute lunch recess that occurs in the middle of the defendant's cross-examination violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - McManus, J.
No. The trial court's order prohibiting contact between the defendant and his counsel during a lunch recess that interrupted cross-examination did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel. The court distinguished this case from Geders v. United States, which found a Sixth Amendment violation when a defendant was barred from consulting counsel during a 17-hour overnight recess. In an overnight recess, it is presumed that broad trial matters beyond the defendant's testimony—such as trial tactics or other witnesses—will be discussed. Conversely, the court found this case more aligned with Perry v. Leeke, which held that prohibiting consultation during a brief, 15-minute recess between direct and cross-examination was constitutional. The Perry court reasoned that in a short recess, it is presumed that nothing but the defendant's ongoing testimony will be discussed, and preventing consultation serves the trial's truth-seeking function by not allowing a witness to be coached. The court concluded that the one hour and forty-minute lunch break was more analogous to the short recess in Perry than the long recess in Geders, and thus the trial judge did not abuse his discretion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the Geders/Perry framework to trial recesses of intermediate length, such as a lunch break. It reinforces the trial court's significant discretion to manage proceedings and protect the integrity of cross-examination by preventing a witness-defendant from being coached mid-testimony. The ruling suggests that unless a recess is long enough to encompass strategic discussions beyond the defendant's immediate testimony (like an overnight break), a no-contact order is likely permissible. This places a practical burden on defense counsel to articulate a specific, non-testimony-related reason for needing to consult with their client if they wish to challenge such an order during a short recess.
