State v. Wilkinson
1992 WL 410153, 612 So. 2d 833 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence that indirectly references a defendant's prior crimes, such as their parole status and financial obligations, is admissible if it is relevant to proving motive and intent, and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Facts:
- On June 1, 1991, Ellis Wilkinson was unable to pay his $43.00 monthly parole supervision fee, which he noted on his parole report.
- Three days later, on the evening of June 4, 1991, Wilkinson entered the Ellis Corner Grocery Store where Clara Watson was working as a cashier.
- Wilkinson produced a gun, pointed it at Watson, and demanded she open the cash register.
- When Watson refused, Wilkinson unsuccessfully attempted to open the register himself before taking the entire machine.
- As Wilkinson left, Watson grabbed the register's electrical cord, but he jerked it from her hands and fled.
- Wilkinson inadvertently left his wallet at the scene, which contained an identification card with his name and photograph as well as his parole report.
- Police located and arrested Wilkinson the following day.
- After his arrest, Wilkinson confessed to taking the cash register but denied that he had used a gun during the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Ellis Wilkinson by bill of information with armed robbery in a Louisiana state trial court.
- Wilkinson pleaded not guilty.
- After a trial, a jury found Wilkinson guilty as charged.
- The State then filed a habitual offender bill of information.
- Following a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Wilkinson a third felony habitual offender and imposed a sentence.
- Wilkinson, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, against the State, as appellee.
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 err in allowing the prosecution to question a defendant about his inability to pay a parole supervision fee when the defendant argues the evidence is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial?
Opinions:
Majority - Chiasson, J. Pro Tem.
No. The defendant's inability to pay his parole supervision fee just three days before the robbery is relevant to establishing motive and intent. The court found that if the defendant had little money, he could have been desperate enough to use a gun to commit an armed robbery. Applying the balancing test from Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 403, the evidence's probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The jury was already aware of the defendant's prior felony convictions and parole status, as he had admitted to them on direct examination and the parole report was contained within the wallet left at the scene and admitted into evidence. Therefore, this line of questioning did not cause unfair prejudice or confusion.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the balancing test for relevant but potentially prejudicial evidence under Louisiana law. It establishes that evidence of a defendant's financial desperation, even when tied to their parole status, can be highly probative of motive and thus admissible. The decision underscores that prejudice is not 'unfair' when the jury is already properly aware of the underlying facts (like prior convictions) through other means, such as the defendant's own testimony. This precedent allows prosecutors to use a defendant's parole-related financial struggles to build a narrative about motive, provided the link is clear and the prejudicial effect is mitigated by other factors in the case.
