State v. Trahan
637 So. 2d 694, 1994 WL 195501 (1994)
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 704, an expert witness in a criminal case may not express an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, even if it relates to an ultimate issue of fact; however, the improper admission of such testimony is subject to harmless error analysis, which determines if the guilty verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error.
Facts:
- Around 2:30 a.m. on June 16, 1991, Page Comeaux was driving a Buick LeSabre southbound on Highway 308 with Jessica Lee and Kendalyn Cheramie as passengers.
- An oncoming northbound Mazda truck, owned by Shane Trahan, veered off the right shoulder, returned to the highway, crossed the centerline, went off the other side, then returned and struck Comeaux's Buick.
- The collision instantly killed Page Comeaux, and Jessica Lee died about an hour later; Kendalyn Cheramie survived with serious injuries.
- Trooper Gregg Falgout arrived at the scene and found the burning Buick and the Mazda truck against a telephone pole; Shane Trahan was found about eleven feet from the Buick, and Petey Mejia was found 111 feet away with a severed arm, dying six hours later.
- Sgt. Ralph Mitchell, an accident reconstruction expert, determined the truck traveled 140-180 feet on the shoulder, abruptly reentered the roadway, crossed the centerline at a sharp angle, and struck the Buick.
- Witnesses, including Petey Mejia's brother, stated that Petey Mejia could not drive a standard transmission vehicle and had seen Shane Trahan driving his truck with Petey Mejia as a passenger earlier that evening.
- Immediately after the accident, Shane Trahan made statements in the ambulance and at the hospital about "his truck" and "I can't believe I did this."
- Medical records showed Shane Trahan sustained injuries consistent with a driver (e.g., left leg fracture, right knee/ankle issues), while Petey Mejia's severe right-sided injuries, including a severed arm, were consistent with being a passenger thrown from the vehicle.
- Shane Trahan's blood alcohol concentration was 0.10 percent approximately three hours after the accident, which experts testified would have been higher at the time of the collision.
- Minutes before the fatal accident, Shane Trahan had been driving his truck recklessly, backing up at high speed towards another vehicle, tailgating it with headlights off, and passing it in a curve over a double yellow line.
Procedural Posture:
- Shane Trahan was indicted with three counts of vehicular homicide.
- He pled not guilty.
- After a trial by jury, Shane Trahan was convicted as charged on all three counts.
- The trial court sentenced Shane Trahan to a concurrent term of ten years imprisonment at hard labor and a fine of $2,000 on each count.
- Shane Trahan appealed his convictions and sentences to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First 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 expert testimony from an accident reconstructionist, stating a "without a doubt" opinion that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle, constitute inadmissible testimony on the ultimate issue of guilt under Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 704, and if so, is its admission subject to harmless error analysis?
Opinions:
Majority - Watkins
Yes, expert testimony expressing a "without a doubt" opinion that the defendant was the driver constitutes inadmissible testimony on the ultimate issue of guilt under Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 704. However, its admission is subject to harmless error analysis. The court found that Sgt. Mitchell's direct opinion that Shane Trahan was "without a doubt" the driver was an inadmissible expression of guilt, violating Article 704, which prohibits experts from offering opinions on the ultimate guilt or innocence of an accused, consistent with State v. Wheeler. This error occurs even if other elements of the crime still need to be proven. However, applying the harmless error analysis from State v. Code (which referenced Sullivan v. Louisiana and Carella v. California), the court determined that the guilty verdict was surely unattributable to this error. The extensive admissible circumstantial evidence—including the truck damage, the manner of the accident, medical evidence of injuries consistent with driver/passenger positions, Petey Mejia's inability to drive a standard transmission, Shane Trahan's post-accident statements, and his reckless driving prior to the collision—was so compelling that no rational juror could find those facts without also finding Shane Trahan was the driver. The jury was also instructed that they were the sole judges of law and facts and could accept or reject expert opinions.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 704 regarding expert testimony on ultimate issues, particularly the boundary between permissible expert analysis and impermissible declarations of guilt. It reinforces that while experts can explain complex technical matters and the implications of physical evidence, they cannot directly state whether the defendant committed a specific element of the crime, especially when that element is a central point of contention. The ruling on harmless error, relying on State v. Code, illustrates that strong circumstantial evidence can render an Article 704 violation non-reversible, emphasizing that the focus is on whether the verdict was unattributable to the error, not merely whether a guilty verdict would have been rendered without it. This provides a framework for future courts to assess the impact of erroneously admitted expert testimony in criminal cases.
