FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #068

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinion handed down on the **16th day of November, 2016** , ais as follows:

**BY WEIMER, J.** :

2014 -K A -2 153 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. RODRICUS C. CRAWFORD (Parish of C addo)

DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES ARE VACATED; REMANDED TO

THE TRIAL COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL.

JOHNSON, C.J., con curs in result, and dissents in part for reasons assigned by Knoll, J. KNOLL, J., concurs in results and dissents and assigns reason s. CRICHTON, J., dissents in part and assigns reasons.

### SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2014-KA-2153

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

RODRICUS C. CRAWFORD

ON APPEAL FROM THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,

FOR THE PARISH OF CADDO

WEIMER , Justice.

This is a direct appeal under La. Const. art. V, § 5(D) by defendant, Rodricus

Crawford. Defendant was indicted by a grand jury for the first degree murder of his

one-year-old son, committed while engaged in the perpetration of cruelty to juveniles

and second degree cruelty to juveniles and while the victim was under twelve years

of age. Following the close of evidence, a jury unanimously found defendant guilty

as charged and, at the conclusion of the penalty phase of the trial, recommended a

sentence of death. The trial court sentenced defendant to death in accordance with

that recommendation. In his appeal to this court, defendant raises twenty-three

assignments of error. Finding merit in defendant’s assignment of error related to his

Batson challenge, defendant’s conviction and sentence are vacated, and this matter 1

is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

See Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 89-90 (1986). 1 11/16/16FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HIST ORY

Ro de riu s “Bob o” Lot t was bo rn in Feb ru ary 20 11 to Lak en dr a Lot t an d

Ro dr ic us Crawf

or d (d efen da n t )

. His pa ren ts ne ve r fo rm al ly da te d, bu t ha ve be en

cl os e fri en ds si nc e m id dl e sc ho ol

. The ch il d l i v e d wit h hi s m ot he r in a ho m e

be lo ng in g to he r pa ren ts

, Alb ert an d Sh aro n W hi te

. Defen da nt li ve d fiv e ho us es fro m

hi s so n, whe re he res id ed wit h hi s m ot he r, gr an dm ot he r, un cl e, an d si st er. Defen da nt

ha d a n e le ve nt h g rad e ed uc at io n a nd work ed sp or ad ic job s. He nev er h el d a st ead y

job

.

The da y hi s so n was bo rn , de fen da nt was pr es en t at th e h o s p i t a l

. Defen da nt

was de sc rib ed as a pr ou d and lo vi ng fat he r of hi s so n and hi s ol de r da ug ht er, who m

he ha d wit h a fo rm er gi rlf rie nd

. Defen da nt of

te n vi si te d hi s so n at th e W hi te s’ ho m e,

br in gi ng hi m to th e Crawf or ds ’ ho m e on ly fo r sh or t vi si ts

, ne ve r to sp en d th e ni gh t.

Fam il y m em

be rs in di cat ed th at th e ch il d was a swe et an d ha pp y ba by, y et th ey st at ed

th at he of te n ha d a ru nn y no se an d co ld sym pt om s. One fam il y

m em be r st at ed th at

th e ch il d al so ha d a whe eze. Acco rd in g to fam il y m em be rs , th es e sym

pt om s were no t

acco m pa ni ed by fe ve r. W he n he was ei gh t m on th s ol d, th e ch il d was tre at ed at th e

ho sp it al fo r an up pe r res pi rat or y in fect io n. Alt ho ug h th e acu te sym pt om s su bs id ed

,

hi s fa m il y

no te d h e fre qu en tl y

ha d c ol d s y

m pt om s.

At th e req ue st of de fen da nt ’s m ot he r, th e ch il d’s m ot he r dr op pe d th e ch il d of f

at de fen da nt ’s ho m e on Mo nd ay , Feb ru ary 13

, 20 12

, fo r a few da y s. On th e ev en in g

of W ed ne sd ay , Feb ru ary 15

, th e m em be r s o f th e Crawf

or d ho us eh ol d, ex cep t

de fen da nt

, at te nd ed a pa rty at a rel at iv e’s ho m e. Defen da nt st ay ed ho m e wit h hi s so n,

de fen da nt ’s y ou ng er br ot he r who was vi si ti ng , an d de fen da nt ’s fri en d. Defen da nt pu t

hi s so n to be d aro un d 9: 30 p.m

. in th e fo ld -o ut so fab ed th e two sh ared in a be dr oo m

.

Sh or tl y a f te r, de fen da nt ’s m ot he r arri ve d ho m e an d pe ek ed in to th e be dr oo m at th e

2ch il d, who was as le ep on hi s st om ach

. W he n de fen da nt ’s si st er ret ur ne d ho m e a li tt le

whi le la te r, sh e al so lo ok ed in on th e ch il d an d ob se rv ed th at th e ch il d was as le ep on

hi s st om ach wit h hi s he ad le an in g ba ck

. Aro un d 11 :0 0 p.m ., aft er sm ok in g two

m ari juan a bl un ts , def

en da nt joi ne d h is so n o n t he so fab ed . No on e el se en te red th e

be dr oo m th at th e ch il d o ccu pi ed un ti l t he ne xt m or ni ng

.

At ap pr ox im at el y 7: 00 a.m

. on Thu rs da y , Feb ru ary 16

, de fen da nt ’s m ot he r was

awak en ed by fran ti c cal ls fro m de fen da nt reg ard in g hi s s on

. Upo n en te rin g th e

be dr oo m , de fen da nt ’s m ot he r ob se rv ed de fen da nt si tt in g on th e ed ge of th e be d

ho ld in g hi s so n, who ap pe ared un res po ns iv e an d was co ol to th e to uc h. Rea li zi ng th e

ch il d was no t br eat hi ng , so m eo ne in th e ho us eh o l d c a ll ed 91 1, whi le de fen da nt ’s

m ot he r an d s is te r at te m

pt ed to pe rfo rm

CPR o n t he ch il d.

A n am bu la nc e arri ve d sh or tl y aft er, an d de fen da nt ran ou ts id e, ca rr y ing his son,

to m eet th e em erg ency m ed ic al te ch ni ci an s (EMTs ). W he n as ke d wha t ha d ha pp en ed

,

de fen da nt to ld on e of th e EMTs th at th e ba by ha d fall en fro m th e be d. Defen da nt ’s

st at em en t to th is effe ct was he ard by th e ot he r at te nd in g EMT as well

. Dur in g th ei r

as se ss m en t, th e EMTs no ti ced th e ch il d was co ld to th e to uc h, hi s ey es were cl ou dy,

an d hi s jaw was st iff

, al l in di cat io ns th at he ha d be en de ad fo r at le as t an ho ur be fo re

th ey arri ve d. Fu rth erm or e, th ey ob se rv ed br ui si ng on va rio us pa rts of th e ch il d’s rig ht

fo reh e a d a n d te m

po ral reg io n an d th e le ft si de of hi s face

. The y al so no te d

bl oo d- ti ng ed flu id dr ai nin g fr om on e no st ril

. The se ob se rv at io ns tri gg ered su sp ic io ns

of ab us e by th e EMTs, as th ey were no t co ns is te nt wit h in ju r i es th at wou ld ha ve

oc cu rred fro m

fal li ng off

of a be d. Bas ed on th ei r su sp ic io ns , th e EMTs co nt act ed

2

th ei r su pe rv i s o r , w h o arri ve d on th e sc en e an d fu rth er qu es ti on ed de fen da nt

. The 3

The EMTs did not notice the injuries to the c hild’s lips at thi s time. 2

Their supe rvisor passe d awa y prior to the trial of this matter. 3

3EMT su pe rv is or no te d in hi s rep or t th at de fen da nt al so to ld hi m th at th e ch il d fel l of f

th e b ed

. 4

Afte r th e am

bu la nc e le ft fo r th e ho sp it al

, two de te ct iv es arri ve d and se arch ed

de fen da nt ’s ho m e an d fo un d a m ari juan a b lu nt “ ro ach ” in an as ht ray. At t he po li ce

st at io n, aft er si gn in g a Mir an da waiv er an d ag reei ng to sp eak to th e d e t ect iv es ,

de fen da nt ad m it te d to b e i n g a h ab it ua l m ari juan a us er an d to ha vi ng sm ok ed two

bl un ts be fo re go in g to be d on Feb ru ary 15 . Defen da nt ex pl ai ne d t ha t whi le he was

pr ep ari ng to gi ve th e ch il d a ba th on Feb ru ary 15

, he ha d to st ep ou t of th e ba th ro om

to ret rie ve a face to wel fro m an ot he r ro om

. Upo n he ari ng a cry, he ret ur n e d t o t he

ba th ro om an d fo un d th e ch il d be twee n th e to il et an d b a t h t u b o n al l fo ur s wit h a

“ bu st ed li p.” Afte r was hi ng th e bl oo d fro m th e ch il d’s li p, de fen da nt “ pu t ic e on hi s

li p.” Defen da nt to ld th e de te ct iv e th at he di d no t kn ow ho w t he c h i l d go t th e m ark

on hi s face

. Defen da nt de ni ed te ll in g th e EMT su pe rv is or th at hi s so n fel l of f th e be d.

Wh e n th e in te rv ie w was fin is he d, de fen da nt was bo ok ed on two un rel at e d

ou ts ta nd in g war ran ts an d s en t t o t he lo cal jail

.

Late r, th e ch il d’s m ot he r to ld th e de te ct iv es th at sh e ob se rv ed a br ui se on th e

rig ht s i d e o f th e ch il d’s he ad ne ar hi s te m pl e an d a bu st ed li p on th e m or ni ng of

Feb ru ary 1 5, whe n sh e wen t to de fen da n t ’s h o me to br in g cl ot he s fo r th e ch il d an d

a no se su ct io n de vi ce to cl ean th e m uc us fro m th e ch il d’s no se

. Acc o r di ng to th e

ch il d’s m ot he r, de fen d an t ha d in fo rm ed he r th en th at th e ch il d ha d fal le n in th e

ba th ro om ne ar t he to il et th e n ig ht be fo re wh en de fen da nt was g iv in g h im a ba th

.

One of th e de te ct iv es co nt act ed th e in ve st ig at or wit h t h e co ro ne r’s of fic e to

co nv ey th e in fo rm at io n th at ha d be en ob ta in ed th us far. The in ve st ig at or rel ay ed th e

This notation is consistent with the testimony of one of the EMTs, who stated that he had not told 4 the supervisor a

bout the child falling out of the bed.

4in fo rm at io n to th e co ro ne r, Dr

. Tod d G. Tho m a, who m et th e EMTs at th e ho sp it al

an d be ga n hi s in ve st ig at io n. The co ro ne r ob se rv ed se ve ral br ui se s to th e ch il d’s face

,

fo reh ead , c he ek s, an d bo dy, wh ic h rai se d su sp ic io n th at th e ch il d ha d be en ab us ed

.

Dur in g hi s in ve st ig at io n, th e co ro ne r ob se rv ed pe te ch ia l br ui si ng on th e ch il d’s in ne r

li ps

.

An au to ps y was pe rfo rm ed by Dr. Ja m es Tray lo r, Jr

., of th e Uni ve rs it y Heal th

Cen te r at Lou is ia na St at e Uni ve rs it y

. Dur in g th e co ur se of th e au to ps y , Dr. Tray lo r

di sc ov ered su bc ut a n e o u s h em or rh ag in g on th e bu tt oc ks

, whi ch he op in ed res ul te d

fro m bl un t fo rce tra um a to th e bu tt oc ks an d ob se rv ed 12 se pa rat e co nt us io ns to th e

ch il d’s bo dy, in cl ud in g se ve n on hi s fo reh ead

. The co ro ne r an d th e do ct or bo th ru le d

th e ch il d’s de at h a ho m ic id e. Late r, aft er ex am in in g sl id es of th e ch il d’s lu ng ti ss ue ,

Dr. Tray lo r di sc o v e r e d t ha t th e ch il d was su ffer in g fro m bi la te ral earl y

br on ch op ne um on ia

, w h ic h was pr es en t in al l fiv e lo be s of th e ch il d’s lu ng s. The

br on ch op ne um on ia

, in Dr. Tray lo r’s op i n i o n , w as in su ffi ci en t to ha ve cau se d th e

ch il d’s d eat h.

Afte r se ek in g an arre s t w a r ran t fo r de fen da nt fo r po ss es si on of m ari juan a,

se co nd of

fen se , on e of th e in ve st ig at in g de te ct iv es ret ur ne d to th e ci ty jail to

in te rv ie w de fen da nt a se co nd ti m e, at whi ch ti m e de fen da nt was arre st ed on th e

m ari juan a ch arg e. Defen da nt m ai nt ai ne d th at he ne ve r hi t hi s s o n o r d au gh te r an d

th at he di d no t su ffo cat e hi s so n. The de te ct iv e, be li ev in g de fen da nt ’s m ari juan a

co ns um pt io n be fo re go in g to sl eep t o be a co nt rib ut in g fact or to th e ch il d’s de at h,

co nt act ed th e di st ric t at to rn ey ’s of fic e an d in te rv ie wed de fen da nt ’s fam il y m em be rs

an d acq ua in ta nc es

. Defen da nt ’s fam il y mem be rs st at ed th at th e ch il d ha d a ru nn y

no se in th e da y s be fo re hi s de at h, b ut di d no t ha ve fev er; no on e be li ev ed hi s

co nd it io n was se rio us en ou gh to req ui re m ed ic al at te nt io n. All bu t on e fa mi l y

5m em

be r (th e ch il d’s m ot he r) de ni ed se ei ng an y br ui se s on th e ch il d’s f a c e a n d

bu tt oc ks pri or to hi s d eat h.

Bas ed on th e co ro ne r’s co nc lu si on th at th e ch il d’s de at h w as a ho m ic id e an d

th e fact th at de fen da nt was th e on ly pe rs on wit h th e c h i l d w h en he di ed

, an arre st

warra nt was ob ta in ed fo r de fen da nt fo r se co nd de gr ee m ur de r. The d e t ect iv e th en

in te rv ie wed de fen da n t a t hi rd ti m e, du rin g whi ch he m ai nt ai ne d hi s in no cen ce an d

in si st ed he ne ve r ab us ed or sm ot he red hi s so n an d th at hi s so n su st ai ne d a bu st ed li p

fro m a fal l in th e b at hr oo m on W ed ne sd ay , Feb ru ary 15 . An in di ct m en t fo r se co nd

de gr ee m ur de r fo ll owe d. Bas ed la rg el y on te st im on y at a pr el im in ary he ari ng by Dr.

Tray lo r, who pe rfo rm ed th e au to ps y at th e req ue st of th e co ro ne r, th e st at e am en de d

th e in di ct m en t t o re fle ct a ch arg e o f fi rs t d eg ree m ur de r.

Defen da nt was su bs eq ue nt ly br ou gh t to tri al

. At t h e co nc lu si on of th e jury

se le ct io n pr oc es s, de fen da nt m ov ed to q u a s h t h e p et it jury ve ni re on th e ba si s of

syste m at ic an d in te nt io na l un de rrep res en ta ti on of Afri can Am eri can s on th e ve ni re

pa ne l, sp eci fic al ly Afri can -Am eri c a n m al es

. Add it io na ll y , co ns id eri ng th e st at e’s

ex erci se of se ve n pe rem pt or y ch al le ng es , fiv e of whi ch were us ed to ex cl ud e

Afri can

- A merica n ve ni re pe rs on s, de fen da nt ur ge d th at th ere is “ a pr im a faci e cas e

f o r a Ba ts on vi ol at io n” an d req ue st ed th e tri al co ur t “ req ui re th e St at e to st a t e r a c e

ne ut ral reas on s” for it s p erem pt or y ch al le ng es

.

In res po ns e to de fen da nt ’s ur gi ng , t h e t r i a l co ur t st at ed

, “ fo r th e reco rd it s

fin di ng in th ere’s be en a pr im a faci e sh owi ng ” b y d e f e nd an t of a Ba ts on vi ol at io n.

The t r i a l co ur t th en wen t th ro ug h each of th e st at e’s pe rem pt or y ch al le ng es ,

a r t ic ul at in g reas on s fo r th e st at e’s st rik es

. Su bs eq ue nt ly, th e tri al co ur t co nc l u d e d

“ th ere is no pr im a faci e sh owi ng at al l as to syste m at ic ex cl us io n on th e ba si s of race

6by th e St at e’s ex erci se of it s pe remp t o r y c h al le ng es ,” th at is

, no Ba ts on vi ol at io n

oc cu rred

.

At tri al

, th e co ro ne r, Dr. Tho m a, w a s acce pt ed as a do ct or wit h sp eci al

ex pe rti se in em erg en cy ro om med i c in e, in pe rfo rm in g au to ps ie s, an d in th e

d e t erm in at io n of th e cau se an d m an ne r of de at h. Dr. Tho m a st at ed th at t h e c h i l d

pr ob ab ly di ed “ at le as t a few ho ur s be fo re” he was pr on ou nc ed d e a d at 7: 34 a.m

.

“ [S]ig ni fic an t br ui si ng acro ss th e [ch il d’s] face

, th e he ad

, [an d] di ffer en t area s of th e

bo dy” was o b s e r v ed by Dr. Tho m a. Ph ot og rap hs th at were in tro du ced at tri al

rev eal ed br ui si ng on th e ch il d’s fo reh ead

, th e m al ar su rfac e of hi s rig ht an d le ft

ch eek s, th e ch il d’s up pe r an d lo wer li ps , hi s rig ht an d le ft te m po ral area , an d hi s

bu tt oc ks

. Dr. Tho m a ex pl ai ne d th at th ere was pe te ch ia l br ui si ng –“ br ui si ng on th e

5

m uc os al su rfac e of ... the up pe r an d th e lo wer l ip ” bi la te ral ly an d “ [p ]redo m in at el y

... on ...t he le ft on th e lo wer pa rt.” Acco rd in g t o D r

. Th o ma, p et ech ia l br ui si ng is

ge ne ral ly cau se d by “ th e li p [b ei ng ] pu sh ed up ag ai ns t th e te et h whi ch cau s e s t he

br ui si ng .” Dr. Tho m a st at ed th at pe te ch ia l br ui si ng is co ns is te nt wit h sm ot he rin g, bu t

e l a b o r a t ed th at th e in

juri es to th is ch il d’s li ps are “ cl as si c” si gn s of m ech an ic a l

co m pr es si on of th e m ou th an d no se id en ti fie d in a m ed ic al te xt bo ok

. The re was al so

“ a li tt le br

ui si ng un de r th e al ar of th e no se th at lo ok ed li ke m ech an ic al co m pr es si on

of t h e f a c e

. ” He no te d th at de at hs by as ph y xi a are no t al way s m ark ed by su ch

“ ph y si cal fin di ng s.” A fal l, ex pl ai ne d Dr. Tho m a, wil l ge ne ral ly cau se in jury to on ly

on e si de an d wou ld no t cau se “ br ui si ng be twee n th e two fro nt te et h.” Thi s ch il d ha d 6

br ui si ng on bo th si de s of hi s face an d li ps , as well as th e li p ti ss ue th at fal ls be twee n

The bruising on the buttocks was slightly visible by external examination, and more pronounce d 5 finding s were made dur ing a utopsy

.

On cross examination, Dr. Thoma admitted that separ ate hits to both sides of the child’s fac e could 6
have c aused bilate ral bruising

.

7hi s up pe r an d lo wer t wo fr on t t eet h. Dr. Tho m a’s op in io n as to th e ch il d’s caus e of

de at h was str en gt he ne d by ot he r area s of bru is in g, su gg es ti ve of “ m ul ti pl e ep is od es

of a b us e,” whi ch tri gg ered th e “ who le in ve st ig at io n,” bu t in or of th em se lv es

ad m it te dl y

ha d n ot hi ng to do wit h t he su ffo cat io n.

Acco rd in g to Dr. Tho m a, earl y br on ch op ne um on ia is “ no t te rri bl y un us ua l in

ch il dr en .” The pr es en ce of br on ch op ne um on ia is no t au to m at ic al ly fat al in ch il dr en

.

Dr. Tho m a op in ed th at th e ch il d’s br on ch op ne um on ia “ was no t si gn ifi can t en ou gh to

ha ve ki ll ed th e ch il d” an d h ad no th in g t o d o wi th hi s d eat h.

Dr. Tho m a ex pl ai ne d th at “ [s ]eps is is a si tu at io n whe re ba ct eri a fro m wha te ve r

in fect io n y ou m ay ha ve , whe th er it be pn eu m on ia

, so re th ro at

, pr os ta ti ti s, ur in ary tra ct

... ge t[s ] in to th e bl oo ds tre am ” an d “ se ts up a syste m ic in fect io n.” W he n th e in fect io n

“ ge ts to be se ve re, y ou ge t sh ak in g, rig or s an d hi gh fev er, th ey ge t ve ry , ve ry de at hl y

il l, an d th en ov er a pe rio d of tim e pe op le wil l g o i nt o ... sep ti c sh oc k, m ean in g t ha t

or ga ns wil l st art to dysfu nc ti on , y ou r bl oo d pr es su re wil l dr op do wn lo w.” Sep si s is

a v e r y ob vi ou s co nd it io n th at res ul ts in “ a ve ry to xi c lo ok in g ch il d” m ark e d b y

de hydrat io n. Dr. Tho m a te st ifi ed th at th is ch il d, if se pt ic

, wou ld ha ve ha d ex tre m el y

hi gh fev er (a t t he 10 4, 1 05 , 10 6 l ev el ) wit h a co ug h a nd be en res tl es s an d i rri ta bl e.

Dr. Tray lo r, who pe rfo rm ed th e ch il d’s au to ps y whi ch be ga n aro un d 8: 30 a.m .,

was acce pt ed by t he tri al co ur t as an ex pe rt m ed ic al do ct or wit h a sp eci al e x p e r t is e

in cl in ic al

, an at om ic

, an d fo ren si c pa th o l o g y. Th e ch il d’s ti m e of de at h was

de te rm in ed by Dr. Tray lo r to be “ be twee n 6: 30 a.m

. on Feb ru ary 16

, 20 12 an d 10 :3 0

p.m

. on Feb ru ary 15

, 20 12

, an d pr ob ab ly cl os er to 6: 30 a.m .” D r

. Tray lo r te st ifi ed

th at ab rad ed co nt us io ns of a bu ccal m uc os a– in si de of th e li p– in vo lv in g th e up pe r an d

lo wer l ip s in di cat e th e ap pl ic at io n of firm pre ss ur e ag ai ns t t he tee th . He add ed th at

th e sm al l ve rti cal li ne ar br ui si ng on th e lo wer in ne r li p an d th e up p e r in ne r li p,

8al ig ni ng wit h th e sp aci ng of th e fro nt te et h, “ im pl ie s pr es su re ap pl ie d ov er th e m ou th

,

pr es si ng th e l i p i n be twee n.” Acco rd in g to Dr. Tray lo r, th es e are “ typic al in juri es ”

fro m a sm ot he rin g. Dr. Tray lo r ack no wled ge d th at th e in juri es to th is ch il d’s li ps

co ul d ha ve be en cau se d by “ te n, fift een , twen ty se co nd s” of pr es su re be in g ap pl ie d,

bu t ob se rv ed th at it wou ld ha ve “ act ua ll y t a ke [n ] a lo t lo ng er th an th at ,” “ at le as t a

m in ut e o r m or e,” t o s m ot he r an in fan t l ik e th is ch il d.

Oth er fin di ng s fro m th e au to ps y , in cl ud in g th e in vo lv em en t of th e th y m us

gl an d, ab ras io ns be lo w th e le ft na rie s an d rig ht al a of th e no se , an d a m il d swe ll in g

7 8

of th e br ai n wit ho ut he rn ia ti on , su bs ta nt ia te d Dr. Tray lo r’s de te rm in at io n as to cau se 9

of de at h. Co ns id eri ng th es e in juri es an d ot he rs su gg es ti ve of ph y si cal ab us e (rec en t

co nt us io ns to th e fo reh ead an d bo th si de s of th e face an d su bc ut an eo us he m or rh ag es 1 0

in bo th si de s of th e bu tt oc ks an d th e sc al p, res ul ti ng fro m m ul ti pl e bl un t fo rce)

, Dr. 1 1

Tray lo r de te rm in ed th e cau se of de at h to be as ph y xi a se co nd ary to sm ot he rin g an d th e

m an ne r of de at h to be ho m i c i d e

. Wh il e no ti ng th e di ffi cu lt y in da ti ng br ui se s wit h

cert ai nt y , Dr. Tray lo r be li ev ed th at th e ch il d’s br ui se s were cau se d by “ r e cen t

in juri es ”– ran gi ng in ti m e fro m “[d ]a ys to week s.” Rel at iv e to th e su bc ut an eo us

he m or rh a g e s i n th e ch il d’s bu tt oc ks area , Dr . Tra y lo r op in ed th at th ey were cau se d

Petechiae in the thy

mus, acc ording to Dr. T ra y l o r, is “commonly found in asphy x ia forms of 7
death.”

Acc ording to Dr. Tra

y lor, the abr asion underne ath the child’s lef t naris (the nostril) a

nd a small, 8

littl e linear abra sion over his rig ht ala (the “wing ed portion of the nose [t hat] connec ts the nostril to the fac e”) “could possibly have been cause d at the time of the smothering ” by t h e child or the

perpe trator.

The lac k of oxy g en ca

uses the bra in to swell. 9

The rig ht side of the child’s fac e exhibi ted bruising (1) above the rig ht ey ebrow near the midline 1 0
and hairline, (2) above and near the ey ebrow

, (3) above the latera l portion of the ey ebrow

, (4) on the
chee kbone in front of the ear , and (5) just below the chee kbone, while the left side of the child’s fac e had bruising anter ior to the ea r just above the c heekbone

.

A fall from a bed, explained Dr. Tray lor, would not have produce d the num b er of contusions 1 1 found on this child’s body

.

9by rep eat ed bl un t fo rce th at ru pt ur ed bl oo d ve ss el s w i t h i n th e la st “ fo ur ho ur s to

se ve ral da y s.”

W he n qu es ti on ed by de fen se co un se l on cro ss ex am in at io n ab ou t th e in juri es

to th e ch il d’s l ip s, Dr. Traylor st at ed :

A. It m ay lo ok li ke a bu st ed li p to y ou , bu t it do es n’t app ear as a bu st ed li p to m e. As I po in te d ou t earl ie r, th e lo wer li p, y ou can se e th e

co nt us io n th at ’s crea te d by th e sp ace be twee n th e bo tt om cen tra l
in ci so rs

.

The ot he r im ag e th at ’s th e up pe r c en tra l– th os e are th e lo wer

cen tra l in ci so rs

. The up pe r li p wit h th e up pe r cen tra l in ci so rs , th ey li ne
up pe rfec tl y

.

Q. So wh at ? “ The y

li ne up pe rfec tl y ”; what do es

–

A. Tha t m ean s, th ere’s pr es su re th at ’s pl aced on th e m o u t h t h a t fo rces th e m

uc os a in be twee n t ho se tee th for a pe rio d o f ti m e.

In res po ns e to de fen se co un se l’s in qu iry ab ou t ot he r po ss ib le cau se s of su ch an in jury,

D r

. Tr a ylo r st at ed th at th ere are “ fo ur di st in ct area s” of co nt us io ns in si de of th e

ch il d’s l ip s:

two on th e lo wer li p an d up pe r li p

– a n d t h e y ’re well de fin ed

. The y

m at ch th e sp aci ng of th e te et h as well as o t h e r te et h th at are th ere. It

m ean s th at pr es su re was ap pl ie d ov er th e m ou th an d th at ’s wha t cau se d
th os e m ark s t he re.

Defen se co un se l th en as ke d, “ Tha t’s th e on ly way t h a t t h o se in juri es co ul d be

cau se d? ” Dr. Tray lo r res po nd ed :

Tho se are th e typic al in

juri es th at if y ou ’re lu ck y en ou gh to se e wit h sm ot he rin g ot he r th an po ss ib ly m ay be a li tt le ab ras io n to th e ti p of
th e no se fro m ei th er a pi ll ow or a sh eet ; y ou m ay se e th at

. Bu t typic al ly,

y ou kn o w , i t ’s refe rred to as a ge nt le ho m ic id e. So m et im es y ou do n’t

ge t an y in di cat io n of th e sm ot he rin g at al l. I th in k it ’s fo rtu na te th at th at

was th ere i n t hi s p art ic ul ar ca se

.

Hit s to th e le ft si de of th e up pe r li p an d to th e rig ht si de of th e lo wer li p by so m et hi ng

“ th e si ze of a kn uc kl e o r ... sm al le r” m ig ht cau se a si m il ar con tu si on , bu t su ch hi ts

,

10in Dr. Tray lo r’s op in io n, wou ld no t pr od uc e th e co nt us io ns th at “ sh ow th e sp aci ng of

th e in ci so rs , bo th up pe r an d l owe r.”

O n d i r e ct ex am in at io n by th e pr os ecu to r, Dr. Tray lo r was as ke d ab ou t h i s

di ag no si s of bi la te ral earl y br on ch op ne um on ia

, whi ch he op in ed was “ in su ffi ci en t 1 2

... to ha ve acco un te d fo r th is ba by’ s de at h, es pe ci al ly in li gh t of th e ot he r fin di ng s.”

Alt ho ug h pr es en t in al l fiv e lo be s of th e ch il d’s lu ng s, each wit h “ va ry in g de gr ees of

br on ch op ne um on ia ,” Dr. Tray lo r st at ed th at “ 80 to 85 pe rcen t of th e [ch il d’s] lu ng is

wel l aera te d, wit h th e rem ai ni ng 15 to 20 pe rcen t co nt ai ne d in th e area s of

br on ch op ne um on ia .” The in fect io n pr es en t in th e ch il d was , in Dr. Tray lo r’s op in io n,

no t su ffi ci en t en ou gh to pr ev en t “ no rm al res pi rat io n.” Acco rd in g to Dr. Tray lo r, fo r

th e in fect io n t o h av e ren de red th e ch il d u na bl e to bre at h du e to se pt ic em ia , m or e o f

th e ch il d’s lu ng s wou ld ha ve to ha ve ha d co nc en tra ti on /c on so li da ti on li ke th at fo un d

on ly in a s m al l fo cal po rti on of t he ch il d’s l eft up pe r lo be

.

Rec og ni zi ng th at to xi ns in th e bl oo ds tre am fro m pn eu m on ia can cau se de at h,

Dr. Tray lo r ex pl ai ne d th at th e “ bl oo d cu lt ur e po si ti ve fo r al ph a he m ol y ti c

st rep ho lc oc ci ” rev eal ed th at th e ch il d di d not ha ve str ep toc oc cu s pn eu m on ia

, no r di d 1 3

th e ch il d sh ow si gn s of se pt ic em ia or se ps is su ffi ci en t to cau se de at h. Acco rd in g to

Dr. Tray lo r, th is ch il d di d no t ha ve “ di ss e mi n a t ed in tra va sc ul ar co ag ul at io n,” hi gh

fev er (1 02

, 10 3, or 104 ), or lo ss of a pp et it e, no r was he “ gr av el y il l i n a pp eara nc e,”

“ ob tu nd ed [–

ba re l y ab le to res po nd ], pa ss ed ou t[, or ] ha vi ng tro ub le br eat hi ng .”

Although a provisional anatomica l diag nosis was rend er ed b ef ore the slides evidenc ing 1 2 bronchopne umonia wer e available

, the final anatomic diag nosis was not rende red until Dr. Tray lor
had an o p p o rt u nity to consider the role, if any , that the bronchopne umonia play ed in the child’s
death.

Dr. Tray lor explained that “streptoc occus pneumoniae

... is the bacte ria that cause s strep throat” 1 3

or “bronc hopneumonia” and is e asily identified in a lab. “The re are other streptococ cal org anisms
that can cause disease proce sses” like the org anism found in this child that cannot be “spec iate[d] ”
“with biochemica l testing.”

11The se are al l si gn s as so ci at ed wit h se ps is

. The re is no ev id en ce th at a fam il y m em be r

fel t th at th e ch il d was si ck en ou gh to req ui re tre at m en t at a ho sp it al in th e da y s be fo re

hi s de at h. Dr. Tray lo r reco un te d “ th at th ere’s no th in g rep or te d th at th is ch il d was il l

or –o th er th an ha d so m e sn iff le s if y ou wil l. You do n’t di e fro m se pt ic em ia wit hi n a

m in ut e.”

Sh or tl y be fo re reac hi ng ei gh t m on th s, on Octo be r 3, 20 1 1

, a n d a g ai n sh or tl y

aft er, th e ch il d was tre at ed fo r co ng es ti on /c ol d sym pt om s in th e em erg en cy ro om an d

di ag no se d wit h an up pe r res pi rat or y in fect io n. Acco rd in g to Dr. Tray lo r, wit h pr op er

tre at m en t, th e ch il d’s co nd it io n wou ld ha ve res ol ve d; ot he rwis e, hi s co nd it io n wou ld

ha ve go tt en wor se ov e r th e ne xt fiv e m on th s, an d th e co nd it io n of th e lu ng s as

ev id en ced by the sl id es wou ld ha ve be en “ a lo t wo rs e.”

In su m m ar i z i n g h is te st im on y on red ire ct by th e pr os ecu to r, Dr. Tray lo r

te st ifi ed th at al l of th e c h i l d ’s i n ju rie s to ge th er rev eal “ m or e li ke ly t ha n no t

... th at

th is ch il d di ed as a res ul t of sm ot he rin g.” W hi le ad m it ti ng th at it was po ss ib le fo r th e

ch il d t o h a v e di ed of se ps is or se pt ic em ia

, Dr. Tray lo r ru le d ou t th at po ss ib il it y in

l i g h t o f th e fact th at no on e in th is ch il d’s li fe co ns id ered hi m to be ve ry il l th e da y

be fo re he di ed

. Acco rd in g to Dr. Tray lo r, if th is ch il d ha d se ps is

, he wou ld ha ve be en

ve ry il l, an d t he pa ren ts wou ld ha ve kn own th at he ne ed ed m ed ic al att en ti on

.

Defen da nt of

fere d th e ex pe rt te st im on y of Fo r e n s i c Pat ho lo gi st Dr. Dan ie l

Jo se ph Sp it z, who wor ks as th e ch ie f m ed ic al ex am in er fo r two co un ti es in Mi ch ig an ,

an as si st an t pr of

es so r of pa th ol og y at W ay ne St at e Uni ve rs it y , a cl in ic al ed uc at or at

Mi ch ig an St at e Uni ve rs it y , a pr iv at e co ns ul ta nt

, an d a co nt rib ut or to a be n ch m ark

bo ok on fo ren si c pa th ol og y au th or ed by hi s fat he r, a ren own ed fo ren si c pa th ol og is t.

Dr. Sp it z te st ifi ed th at th is ch il d was “n o t a he al th y ch il d; ” he was co ug hi ng an d

whe ezi ng an d ha d a ru nn y no se

. He op in ed th at th e ch il d “ di ed as a res ul t of

...

12bi la te ral br on ch op ne um on ia ” th at cau se d th e ch il d to be co m e se pt ic an d di e “ of th os e

in fect io us co m

pl ic at io ns .” The ch il d su ffer ed fro m “ pr etty se ve re bi la te ral m ul ti lo ba r

pn eu m on ia .” The pn eu m on ia w as pr esen t “ in m ul ti pl e area s th ro ug ho ut each se ct io n”

of th e lu ng

. “ So m e se ct io ns of lu ng act ua ll y sh owe d abs ces se d form at io n ... [wit h]

a la rg e co ll ect io n wi th ne cro si s o f th e ti ss ue ; in ot he r wor ds

, de ad ti ss ue , as a res ul t

of th is in fect io n.” Dr. Sp it z no te d th at “ th ere was a st rep to co ccal in fect io n

... th at

...

was pr es en t in th e bl oo d

, w h i c h i n di cat ed th at th is ch il d

... was , i n fact , s ep ti c as a

res ul t of th is in fect io n” an d “ can cau se si gn ifi can t card io va sc ul ar co ns eq ue nc es .”

Thi s co nd it io n, ex pl ai ne d Dr. S p i t z , “pro gr es se d fro m a vi ral in fect io n,” li ke th e

in fect io n he ha d rece nt ly be en tre at ed fo r twi ce be fo re, “ ov er a pe rio d of ho ur s,” an d

“ cau se d th e ch il d’s de at h du rin g t h e n i g h tt im e ho ur s.” Acco rd in g to Dr. Sp it z, th e

in juri es to th is ch il d’s m ou th al on e “ do n’t ex cl ud e th at po ss ib il it y .” In li gh t of th es e

pa th ol og ic fin di ng s, Dr. Sp it z fo un d it “ im pl au si bl e” to co nc lu de th at th is ch il d “ jus t

ha pp en ed to be sm ot he red in so m e u nt owa rd fas hi on .”

Dr. Sp it z di sa gr eed wit h Dr. Tray lo r’s de te rm in at io n as to th e cau se of de at h,

ex pl ai ni ng th at it is di ffi cu lt to “ m ak e a de te rm in at io n of sm ot he rin g ba se d on sm al l

an d su bt le in

juri es to th e fac e

. ” “ [T]he de te rm in at io n of sm ot he rin g is a di ffi cu lt

di ag no si s,” ex pl ai ne d Dr. Sp it z, whi ch “ of te n ha s to be m ad e in th e co nt ex t of th e

to ta li ty of th e cas e.” He cau ti on ed th at “ in juri es to th e m ou th [m

us t] be e v a lu at ed

care fu ll y .” Acco rd in g to Dr. Sp it z, in juri es to th e m ou th can oc cu r “ fro m an y type of

fo rce th at is ap pl ie d to th e m ou th .” It is im po ss ib le to lo ok at th is ch il d’s li p “ in juri es

an d sa y ho w lo ng it to ok to cau se th em .” Dr. Sp it z te st ifi ed th at de at h by su ffo cat io n

oc cu rs wit hi n on e-an d- a ha lf to two -an d- a-h al f m in ut es

. Acco rd in g to Dr. Sp it z, it

is im po ss ib le to kn ow fro m th e in juri es to th e ch il d’s li ps , “ whi ch are ve ry sm al l an d

su bt le ,” whe th er “ th ere was co m pr es si ve fo rce fo r a pe rio d of se ve ral m in ut es .” Dr.

13Sp it z ex pl ai ne d th at “ th ere’s no way to se pa rat e th at po ss ib il it y fro m th e po ss ib il it y

o f t h i s c h i l d si m

pl y ha vi ng a fo rce ap pl ie d to th e m ou th du rin g th e co ur se of so me

type of acci de nt .” It is pl au si bl e, st at ed Dr. Sp it z, th at th e ch il d’s m ou th in juri es were

cau se d by th e fal l th e ch il d rep or te dl y su st ai ne d in t h e b a t hr oo m

. “ [T]hes e m in or

in juri es to th e face se em ve ry m u c h t o h a v e a reas on ab le ex pl an at io n an d on e th at

m ak es co m

pl et e f o r e n s i c se ns e: A fo rce to th e m ou th .” Add it io na ll y , Dr. Sp it z

te st ifi ed th at th e “ sm al l li ne ar ab ras io n” on th e in ne r lo wer li p is “ hi gh up on th e li p”

an d do es no t li ne up an at om ic al ly. “ Any co m pr es si ve fo rce to th e m ou th –a n im pa ct

,

a fo rce, a bl ow, y ou bu m

p in to so m et hi ng –c ou ld acco un t fo r th at in jury,” es pe ci al ly

to a ch il d “ le arn in g ho w to walk .” Dr. Sp it z op in ed th at th e “ su bt le in juri es on th e

up pe r pa rt of th e li p ... are so no ns pe ci fic

, to su gg es t anythi ng ot he r th an so m e so rt

of fo rce[ ,] an d m in or in se ve rit y [,] is ov ers te pp in g what th es e in juri es can te ll y ou .”

Acco rd in g to Dr. Sp it z, no t al l ch il dr en wit h se ps is “ fo ll ow a te xt bo ok pa tt ern

of fev er, ch il ls

, co ug h, le th arg y , ho sp it al iz at i o n , ... an d pr og res si ve de cl in e.” Dr.

Sp it z te st ifi ed th at “ [s ]om e ki ds

, u n f o r tu na te ly, ha ve pn eu m on ia an d th ey pr og res s

ve ry qu ic kl y , an d th ey can be co m e se pt ic ov er a pe r i od of ho ur s an d su ffer a m or e

su dd en card io va sc ul ar– card io pu lm on ary co ll ap se ” li ke

, in hi s vi ew, th e ch il d in th is

cas e.

Alt ho ug h th e ch il d’s br ui se s su gg es t th at he may h a v e be en m is ha nd le d an d

ab us ed

, Dr. Sp it z op in ed th at th ey “ di d no t cau se [th e ch il d’s] de at h.” W hi le th ey are

fact or s to be co ns id ered in de te rm in in g a cau se of de at h, “ on ce th e cas e was ev al ua te d

fu ll y , in cl ud in g exa m in at io n of the sl id es , th e cau se of de at h bec am e qu it e cl ear” to

Dr. Spi tz

.

On cro ss ex am in at io n, th e st at e be ga n by br in gi ng to li gh t in fo rm at io n th at

cal le d D r

. S pi tz ’s c red ib il it y an d rel ia bi li ty i nt o qu es ti on

. Thi s in fo rm at io n rel at ed

14to hi s acco un ta bi li ty to th e bo ard of co m m is si on ers as ch ie f m ed ic al ex am in er, a pr io r

au to ps y th at was bo tc h e d b y D r

. Sp it z, th e nu m be r of au to ps ie s pe rfo rm ed by Dr. 1 4

Sp it z, an d h is nu m ero us ot he r pr of es si on al res po ns ib il it ie s an d wo rk lo ad

. 1 5 1 6

Dis ag reei ng wit h Dr. Tray lo r, Dr. Sp it z te st ifi ed th at th e sym pt om s su gg es ti ve

of se ps is in ch il dr en “ are in cred ib ly va ria bl e” an d can “ pr og res s ve ry qu ic kl y an d can

cau se card io pu lm on ar y c o l l ap se ov er a pe rio d of ho ur s.” Acco rd in g to Dr. Sp it z,

“ th is ch il d ha s a hi st or y of up pe r res pi rat or y in fect io ns ”; “ th at hi st or y c a n pu t [th e

fam il y ] at a he ig ht en ed aware ne ss of fu rth er in fect io n or a pr og res si ve in fect io n th at

pu ts th e ch il d at ris k fo r

... de ve lo pi ng a ba ct eri al pn eu m on ia .” Thi s “ ch il d be cam e

se pt ic

, be cau se he ha [d ] pn eu m on ia .” “ [T]he ti m e be twee n th e ev en in g ho ur s of th e

15 an d th e m or ni ng ho ur s of th e 16 is en ou gh ti m e fo r th is ch il d to be co m e se pt ic ,” th th

ex pl ai ne d Dr. Sp it z.

A fal l fr om

a be d, s ta te d Dr. Sp it z, co ul d h av e cau se d t he ch il d’s li p in juri es

.

“ The re’s no th in g ab ou t th es e br ui se s th at al lo w a f o ren si c pa th ol og is t to be cert ai n

th at th ey are cau se d by a pr ol on ge d, co m pr es si ve fo r ce. Dr. Sp it z ad m it te d th at he

“ ne ve r ru le d ou t sm ot he rin g. [Rat he r, he ] si m pl y sa id th at th ere are ve ry reas on ab le

ex pl an at io ns fo r th es e type of in juri es in li gh t of th e fact th at th is ch il d ha s a bi la te ral

I nitially , Dr. Spitz ruled that the ca use of de ath of a

man, found a fter his body had dec omposed 1 4

some 40 day s in water

, was “undete rmined.” During a second autopsy perf ormed at the reque st of
the dece dent’s family

, a previously undetec ted bullet wound wa s discovere d by another medical
examiner “at the base of the skull toward the back, kind of behind the ear ” sug g esting suicide as the

cause of death. Also discovere d by the other medical exami n er wa s a bullet “lodg ed up near the teeth,” the tissues nex t to a molar, “ne ar some de ntal work.”

Along with his administrative duties as chief medical examiner on a full-time basis for one county 1 5
and on a part-time basis in a second county

, Dr. Spitz annually perf ormed a l arge number of

au topsies. That number approa ches or slightly exceeds the number (325) rec ommended by the
National Group of Medica l Ex am i ners, which rec ommends that this number should be lower for
chief medical e x aminers in lig ht of their administrative duties.

Dr. Spitz also perf

ormed private auto p sies, lecture d various g roups that sometimes included 1 6
attorney s, and worke d as a consultant for private attorney s. He is a published author of “a v ery

we l l -respecte d book

... [t hat] is used in ever y medical school acr oss the country ” and a cl i n i ca l
educator at Michig an State Univer sity School of Medicine.

15pn eu m on ia

, th at it ’s m or e co ns is te nt wit h th e de at h fro m pn eu m on ia .” “ [T]o su gg es t

th at th is ch il d ha s a bi la te ral pn eu m on ia an d jus t ha pp en s to be sm ot he red at th e sa m e

ti m e do es n’t m ak e a lo t of c o m m on or fo ren si c se ns e,” acco rd in g to Dr. Sp it z. Dr.

Tr ay lo r’s op in io n is no t reas on ab le “ in li gh t of th e de gr ee of [th e ch il d’s]

pn eu m on ia .”

On reb ut ta l an d in res po ns e to Dr. Sp it z’s te st im on y , Dr. Tray lo r rei te rat ed hi s

op in io n th at th e ch il d was no t se pt ic an d th at th e ch il d ’s d e a t h w a s no t cau se d by

se ps is

. The pr es en ce of ba ct eri a in th e bl oo ds tre am do es no t always res ul t in de at h.

Th e c h i l d h a d on ly a m il d, no t a se ve re, cas e of br on ch op ne um on ia

, whi ch th e

po si ti ve bl oo d cu lt ur e ev id en ced was no t st rep p n e u mo n i a

. “ [W] hi le se ps is is a

po ss ib il it y ,” su ch a co nd it io n, in Dr. Tray lo r’s op in io n, wou ld pr od uc e “ a lo ba r-t y pe

pn eu m on ia in vo lv in g th e en ti re lo be of lu ng , whi ch y ou do n’t se e h e r e

. ” Th e

co nd it io n of th e ch il d’s lu ng s wou ld ha ve be en m uc h m or e se ve re. Acco rd in g to Dr.

Tr a yl or , ha d th e ch il d be en se pt ic

, he wou ld ha ve ha d “ [l]ab or ed br eat hi n g ;

li st le ss ne ss ; le th arg y .” “ [W] hi le

... th ere is br on ch op ne um on ia th ere, [Dr. Tray lo r

di d] no t be li ev e th at th is ch il d di ed as a di rect res ul t of se pt ic em ia .” If se pt ic

, “ th e

ch il d wou ld ha ve m an ife st ed sym pt om s lo ng be fo re” he wen t to sl eep at 9: 30 p.m

. on

Feb ru ary 15 , op in ed Dr. Tray lo r.

Acco rd in g to Dr. Tray lo r, “ [h ]em or rh ag es an d te ars to th e li ni ng of th e or al

cav it y , in cl ud in g t he fren ul a o f th e u pp er an d l owe r li ps ” sp eak for th em se lv es

. “ If

it weren ’t im

po rta nt

, why wou ld it be in a be nc hm ark te xt bo ok ? ” qu es ti o n e d D r

.

Tray lo r, refe rri ng to th e fo ur th ed it io n of th e te xt bo ok th a t w a s c o a u th or ed by Dr.

Sp ti z an d h is fat he r, W ern er Sp it z.

On cro ss ex am in at io n du rin g t he st at e’s reb ut ta l, d efen se co un se l q ue st io ne d

Dr. Tr a ylo r ab ou t hi s fo rm er te st im on y rel at in g to th e cau se of de at h be in g “ m or e

16li ke ly th an no t o f sm ot he rin g.” Dr. Tay lo r cl ari fie d, “ My op in io n is ... the de at h of

th e ch il d is th e res ul t of as ph y xi a, se co nd a r y t o s moth eri ng .” Fu rth erm or e, Dr.

Tray lo r (o n red ire ct ) ex pl a i n e d t ha t he was no t us in g th e ph ras e “ m or e li ke ly th an

no t” in an y ki nd of le ga l se ns e in te rm s of pe rcen ta ge s. Dr. Tray lo r co nc lu de d by

te st ifyin g t ha t h e was co nf id en t i n h is op in io n t ha t s om eo ne sm ot he red th e ch il d.

Afte r he ari ng th is te sti m ony al ong w ith the te st im on y of se ve ral ot he r wit ne ss es

an d co ns id eri ng al l of th e ev id en ce, in cl ud in g th e ph ot og rap hs of th e ch il d’s in juri es ,

a u na ni m ou s ju ry

fou nd de fen da nt gu il ty of th e fir st -d eg ree m ur de r an d det erm in ed

de fen da nt sh ou ld be se nt en ced to de at h. Defen da nt th en fil ed a m ot io n fo r ne w tri al

,

whi ch fo cu se d on al le ga ti on s of th e pr os ecu to r’s im pr op er us e of rel ig io n in t h e

pe na lt y ph as e o f tr ia l an d t he un de rrep res en ta ti on of Afri can Am eri can s in th e p et it

jury ve ni re an d a rel at ed di sc ov ery req ue st

, an d di d no t ad dr es s gu il t is su es

. Thi s

m ot io n was de ni ed by the tri al co ur t.

In th e pe na lt y ph as e, th e tri al co ur t no te d th at th e st at e’s at ta ck of de fen da nt ’s

ex pe rt, Dr. Sp it z, ev id en tl y pro ve d e ffec ti ve , st at in g:

The on ly is su e pr es en te d of any si gn ifi can t deb at e was th at of cau se of
de at h, wh et he r it was t he sm ot he rin g o r pn eu m on ia

.

Exp ert te st im on y was pr es en te d, th e Co ur t fo un d in it s op inion th e cred ib il it y of th e wit ne ss es pr es en te d by th e St at e to be hi gh ly cred ib le

an d th at of th e de fen se ex pe rt to be , at b es t, s us pe ct . The ex pe rt o f th e de fen da nt was at ta ck ed on hi s cred ib il it y an d ve raci ty, an d I be li ev e an y

ve raci ty tha t h e h ad was d es tro y ed

.

Co ns eq ue nt ly, ba se d on no t on ly th e Co ur t’s op in io n b u t al so
watc hi ng th e jury du rin g th e pr es en ta ti on of th at te st im on y of t h e

ex pe rts

, it was cl ear to m e th at th ere was no is su e of an y do ub t as to th e

cau se of de at h; th at is

, be in g th e sm ot he rin g of th e on e y ear- ol d ch il d by
th e d efen da nt

.

As reco m

m en de d by th e jury, th e tri al c o u rt se nt en ced de fen da nt to de at h.

Defen da nt ’s su bs eq ue nt ly file d m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n o f se nt en ce was de ni ed

.

17The m at te r is no w be fo re th is co ur t on di rect ap pe al un de r La. Co ns t. art

. V, §

5( D) by de fen da nt

. Dur in g th e pe nd en cy of th is m at te r, de fen da nt fil ed a m ot io n to

rem an d wit h th is co ur t in co nn ect io n wit h a se co nd m ot io n fo r ne w tri al th at was fil ed

wit h th e tri al co ur t, se ek in g an ev id en ti ary he ari ng fo r th e de ve lo pm en t of ad di ti on al

fact s th at be ar on whe th er a cap it al cri m e act ua ll y oc cu rred

. The ev id en ce so ug ht to

be in tro du ced fro m se ve ral ne w ex pe rts in th e fie ld s of pe di at ric pa th ol og y , pe di at ric

ne ur op at ho lo gy, an d ped ia tri c in fect io us di se as e co nf irmed Dr. Sp it z’s op in io n th at

th e ch il d di ed of na tu ral cau se s fro m pn eu m on ia an d s e ps is

. The se ex pe rts were

co ns ul te d aft er the gu il ty ve rd ic t was ent ered

. Defen da nt ’s m ot io n to rem an d was 1 7

d e n i e d by th is co ur t on Mar ch 16

, 20 15

. Afte r th e en ro ll m en t of ne w co u n s e l

,

de fen da nt fil ed a “ Ru le XXVIII Mo ti on to Rem an d” on Aug us t 10

, 20 16

, co nt en di ng

th at “ m or e ev id en ce ha s am as se d ag ai ns t Dr. Tray lo r’s op in io n th at th e de at h was du e

to ho m ic id al sm ot he rin g , ” whi ch be ars on “ th e ex ces si ve ne ss of th e se nt en ce

im po se d.” In th is pe nd in g m ot io n, de fen da nt se ek s to ha ve th is co ur t rem an d th e cas e

to th e tri al co ur t for reso lu ti on of “ th e di sc rep an ci es be twee n th e St at e’s tri al ex pe rt

te st im on y an d t he ne wly-dis co ve red ev id en ce re ga rd in g t he cau se of d eat h.” 1 8

Attache d to defe ndant’s motion wer e the rep o r ts o f v a r io u s experts–multi ple fore nsic patholog ists, 1 7

a pediatric neuropa thologist, a pediatric neurolog ist, and an expert pediatric infec tious diseases–tha t

contra dict the testimony

of the state’ s experts as to the child’s ca use of de ath.

I n his proposed order

, defe ndant see k s to have this court direc t the trial court “to hold an 1 8
evidentiar y hear ing to resolve the issues identified in [defendant’ s] Second Motion for New Trial ,”
which is pre cl u d ed b y t his court’s denial of defe ndant’s prior motion to rema nd. Howeve r,

conce rning the “Capital sentenc e revie w” mandated by L a. C.Cr.P. art. 905.9, Rule 28 of the Rules
of Supreme Court of

L ouisiana authorizes this c ourt to “ rema nd the matter for the development of
fac ts re l ating to whether the sentenc e is excessive.” L a. S. Ct. Rule XXVI I I

, § 5. There fore

, the

g ranting of defe ndant’s curr ently pending motion to rema nd would only allow consideration of any

n ew evidenc e rela tive to defe ndant’s sentenc e. Rule 28 does not authorize further revie w of the jury ’s g uilt determination.

18DISCUSS IO N

A. Suffi ci ency of t he Ev id ence (Ass ig nm en t o f Erro r I)

Alt ho ug h ul ti m at el y co nc lu di ng on ot he r gr ou nd s th at de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on

an d se nt en ce m

us t be rev ers ed an d th e cas e rem an de d fo r a ne w tri al

, th e su ffi ci en cy

of th e ev id en ce as si gn m en t o f erro r is an al y zed fir st be cau se th e la ck of su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce to su st ai n th e co nv i c t i o n wou ld en ti tl e de fen da nt to an acq ui tt al un de r

Huds on v. Lo ui si an a , 45 0 U.S. 40

, 44 -4 5 (1 98 1)

. See Sta te v. Mic k el so n , 12 -2 53 9,

p. 5 (La. 9/ 3/ 14 ), 14 9 So .3d 17 8, 18 2 (ci ti ng Sta te v. Max ie

, 93 -2 15 8 (La. 4/ 10 /9 5)

,

65 3 S o.2 d 5 26 , 53 1)

.

Defen da nt arg ue s th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t a co nv ic ti on fo r

fir st -d eg ree m

ur de r an d th e im

po si ti on of a de at h sen te nc e. Sp eci fic al ly, de fen da nt

c o n t e n d s (1 ) th e st at e fai le d to pr ov e de fen da nt po ss es se d th e sp eci fic in te nt to ki ll

or in fli ct gr eat bo di ly ha rm up on th e ch il d, (2 ) th e ex pe rt fo ren si c te st im on y pr es en te d

at tri al di d no t es ta bl is h be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at a ho m ic id e oc cu rred

, (3 ) th ere

was un co nt rad ic te d te st im on y th at th e pr im ary in jury th at th e st at e’s ex pe rts rel ie d on

in reac hi ng th ei r co nc lu si on th is was a ho m ic id e act ua ll y oc cu rred th e da y befo re th e

ch il d’s de at h, (4 ) th ere was no ev id en ce de fen da nt ev er ab us ed th e ch il d pr io r to hi s

de at h, a fu nd am en ta l te ne t in th e st at e’s th eo ry of t h e c a s e, an d (5 ) wit ne ss es

ex pr es sl y reject ed th e st at e’s pr op os ed m ot iv e to co m m it th e al le ge d h om ic id e.

“ [N]o pe rs on sh al l be m ad e to su ffer th e on us of a cri m in al co nv ic ti on ex cep t

up on su ffi ci en t pr oo f-d efi ne d as ev id en ce ne ces sa ry to co nv in ce a tri er of fact be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t of t h e ex is te nc e of ev ery el em en t of th e of fen se .” Ja ck so n v.

Virg in ia

, 44 3 U.S. 30 7, 31 6 (1 97 9)

. A rev ie win g co ur t, ex am in in g al l of th e

ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pr os ecu ti on , m us t de te rm in e whe th er “ an y

rat io na l tri er of fact co ul d ha ve fo un d th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e cri m e b e yo n d a

19reas on ab le do ub t.” Id

. at 3 19 ; ac co rd Sta te v . Bro w n , 02 -1 92 2, p . 8 (La. 5 /2 0/ 03 ),

84 6 So .2d 71 5, 72 1. In Sta te v. Dav is

, 92 -1 62 3, p. 11 (La. 5/ 23 /9 4)

, 63 7 So .2d 10 12

,

10 20 , a cap it al cas e, th is co ur t ex pl ai ne d:

In ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce cas es , th is co ur t do es n o t d et erm in e whe th er an ot he r po ss ib le hypo th es is su gg es te d by a de fen da nt co ul d
affo rd an ex cu lp at or y ex pl an at io n of th e ev en ts

. R a th er, th is co ur t,

ev al ua ti ng th e ev id en ce in th e l i g h t most fav or ab le to th e pr os ecu ti on , de t e r m in es whe th er th e po ss ib le al te rn at iv e hypo th es is is su ffi ci en tl y

rea so na bl e th at a rat io na l juro r c o u l d n o t ha ve fo un d pr oo f of gu il t be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t u nd er Ja ck so n v . Virg in ia [.]

The Ja ck so n st an da rd do es no t pe rm it th is co ur t to su bs ti tu te it s own ap pr eci at io n of

th e fact s for th at of th e fact fin de r. Sta te v. Rob erts on , 96 -1 04 8, p. 1 (La. 10 /4 /9 6)

,

68 0 So

. 2 d 1 1 6 5

, 11 66

. It is no t th e pr ov in ce of th e rev ie win g co ur t to as se ss th e

cred ib il i t y o f w i tn es se s or rewei gh ev id en ce. Sta te v. Smith

, 94 -3 11 6, p. 2 (La.

10 /1 6/ 95 ), 66 1 So.2 d 44 2, 44 3. As exp la in ed in Sta te v. Muss al l , 52 3 S o.2 d 1 30 5,

13 10 (La. 19 88 ):

If ra ti on al tri ers of fact co ul d d is ag ree as to th e in te rp ret at io n of th e

ev id en ce, th e ra ti on al tri er’s vi ew of al l of th e ev id en ce m os t fav or ab le

to th e pr os ecu ti on m

us t be ad op te d. Thu s, ir r a t i o n a l de ci si on s to

co nv ic t wil l be ov ert ur ne d, ra ti on al de ci si on s to co nv ic t wil l be up he ld

,
an d th e act ua l fact fin de r’s di sc ret io n wil l be im pi ng ed up on on ly to th e

ex te nt ne ces sa ry to gu aran te e th e fu nd am en ta l pr ot ect io n of du e pr oc es s of law. [Fo ot no te om it te d.]

To o bt ai n a co nv ic ti on for fir st de gr ee m ur de r un de r th e st at e’s th eo ry of th is

cas e, th e st at e ha d to pr ov e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at de fen da nt ha d a sp eci fic

in te nt to ki ll or i nf

li ct gre at bo di ly ha rm up on a v ic ti m un de r th e ag e o f 12 or wh il e

en ga ge d in th e pe rp et rat io n or at te m pt ed pe rp et rat io n of cru el ty to juv en il es or se co nd

de gr ee cr ue lt y

to juv en il es . See La. R.S. 1 4: 30 (A)(1 ) & (5 ).

Fi rs t, de fen da nt arg ue s th e fo ren si c te st im on y pr es en te d at tr ia l w as insuf fic ie nt

to pr ov e be y on d a r e a so na bl e do ub t th at a ho m ic id e oc cu rred

. Defen da nt po in ts to

Dr. Tray lo r’s op in io n as to th e cau se of th e ch il d’s de at h

, a f t e r ob se rv in g al l of th e

20br ui si ng di sc ov ered du rin g th e au to ps y to th e face

, s c a l p , a nd bu tt oc ks “ in di cat es

ab us e”:

And y ou pu t al l th os e th in gs to ge th er, I th in k it ’s mor e li kel y th an no t
, in m y op in io n, th at th is ch il d di ed as a res ul t of sm ot he rin g. [Em ph as is
ad de d.]

On cro ss ex am in at io n, de fen se co un se l co nf irmed th at Dr. Tray lo r’s op in io n was th at

“ th e in jury to th e li p

... was [,] m or e li k el y tha n no t [,] a sm ot he rin g.” (Em ph as is

ad de d.)

Rel y in g o n a pu bl ic at io n by t he Nati on al Ass oc ia ti on of Med ic al Exam in ers ,

A Gui de fo r Man ne r of Deat h Clas si fic at io n, whi ch se ts fo rth a ge ne ral sc he m e of 1 9

in crem en ta l “ de g rees of cert ai nt y ” fo r cl as si fy in g th e m an ne r of de at h, de fen da nt 2 0

no w arg ue s th at th e “ m or e li ke ly th an no t” cla ss ifi cat io n, “ th e lo wes t p os si bl e le ve l

of cert ai nt y an ex am in er can ha ve whi le st il l pr ov id in g a pro po se d c au se of d eat h,”

is in su ffi ci en t to sa ti sf

y th e st at e’s bu rd en of pr oo f, th at is

, pr oo f be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t. Thi s arg um en t co nf la te s th e de gr ee of cert ai nt y ex pr es se d by th e st at e’s ex pe rt

wit h th e st a t e ’s b u r d en of pr oo f in a cri m in al pr os ecu ti on

. As lo ng as th e jury

rat io na ll y fo un d th e st at e pr ov ed ev ery el em en t of th e of fen se be y on d a r e a s o n ab le

do ub t gi ve n th e to ta li ty of th e ev id en ce, th en Dr. Tray lo r’s st at em en t do es no t, in an d

of it se lf, ren de r de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on co ns ti tu ti on al ly in fir m , pa rti cu la rly

co ns id eri ng hi s un eq ui vo cal te st im on y on reb ut ta l th at th e ch il d’s de at h was cau se d

by sm ot he rin g.

On reb ut ta l, whe n de fen se co un se l so ug ht to un de rs co re th e un cert ai nt y in Dr.

Tray lo r’s op in io n as to th e ch il d’s cau se of de at h, Dr. Tray lo r st at ed th at

, ho wev er he

See R A NDY H A

NZL ICK, M.D., ET A L
., A G UIDE FOR M AN NER OF D EATH C LA SSIFICA T ION
, 1 9
National Associa tion of Medical Examiners (1st Ed. 2002).

Be cause the medical examiner’s publication was not introduced into evidenc e and was not the 2 0 subject of testimony

at trial, the state a

rg ues the publica tion should not be conside red on a ppeal.

21ph ras ed hi s tes ti m on y du rin g t he st at e’s cas e-i n- ch ie f an d u nd er cr os s exa m in at io n,

hi s un eq ui vo cal op in io n was th at “ th e de at h of th e ch il d i s t h e res ul t of as ph y xi a,

se co nd ary to sm oth er in g.” W it h th e pr os ecu to r’s di sc red it in g of th e de fen se ’s ex pe rt 2 1

on cro ss ex am in at io n, on e m ay reas on ab ly in fer th at Dr. Tray lo r’s te st im on y as to th e

cau se of d eat h s ub st an ti al ly con tri bu te d t o t he jury’ s v erd ic t.

Defen da nt al so no te s th at Dr. Tray lo r de te rm in ed th e ch i l d’s cau se of de at h

be fo re he le arn ed of th e ch il d’s pe rv as iv e br on ch op ne u m on ia

, whi ch

, at tri al

, he

ack no wled ge d co ul d ha ve cau se d th e ch il d’s de at h. At th e co nc lu si on of th e au to ps y ,

Dr. Tray lo r ren de red “ a pr ov is i o na l an at om ic al di ag no si s” be fo re th e sl id es , whi ch

di sc lo se d br on ch op ne um on ia

, be cam e av ai la bl e. Howev er, on rece ip t of th os e sl id es ,

Dr. Tray lo r rev is it ed th at di ag no si s an d ren de red a “ fin al an at om ic di ag no si s” aft er

rev ie win g th e cas e ag ai n. His fin al op in io n was “ as ph y xi a, se co nd ary to sm ot he rin g.”

Thi s de te rm in at io n was ba se d on (1 ) th e vo lu m e of br on ch op ne um on ia in th e ch il d’s

lu ng s as ev id en ced by th e sl id es , (2 ) t h e a b se nc e of st rep to co ccu s pn eu m on ia as

ev id en ced by th e bl oo d cu lt ur e, (3 ) th e ab se nc e of th e cl as si c si gn s of se ps is

, (4 ) th e

la ck of an y ev id en ce th at th e fam il y m em be rs th ou gh t th e ch il d was si ck en ou gh to

ne ed m ed ic al tre at m en t, an d (5 ) in pa rti cu la r, th e pr es en ce of “ be nc hm ark te xt bo ok ”

si gn s o f sm ot he rin g, s el do m fou nd on vi ct im s o f th is “ ge nt le ho m ic id e.”

Defen da nt cri ti ci zes Dr. Tray lo r’s m et ho ds fo r f ai li ng to co ll ect wit ne ss

acco un ts fro m th os e wh o s p e nt ti m e wit h th e ch il d in th e da y s be fo re hi s de at h,

pa rti cu la rly be cau se th os e acco un ts “ i nv ari ab ly co nt ai ne d ob se rv at io ns of m ul ti pl e

di ffer en t si gn s of il ln es s.” Neit he r Dr. Tho m a no r Dr. Tray lo r co ns id ered th e

I n light of this testimony

, it is unneces s ar y fo r t h i s court to consider the medical examiner’s 2 1 publication on appea l.

22st at em en ts gi ve n to po li ce of fic ers fro m th e wit ne ss es who ob se rv ed th e ch il d in th e

da y s b efo re h is de at h.

Co n c e r n i n g th e ch il d’s he al th

, th e reco rd rev eal s th e fo ll owi ng

. The ch il d’s

m at ern al gr an dm ot he r te st ifi ed th e ch il d was a “ ha pp y ba by,” who of te n ha s a ru nn y

no se ; sh e fu rth er te st ifi ed he ha d a ru nn y no se , b ut was no t ru nn in g a f e v e r t h e la st

ti m e sh e sa w hi m al iv e on Su nd ay , Feb ru ary 12

, 20 12

. Defen da nt ’s m ot he r no te d th e

ch il d ha d a ru nn y no se an d a whe eze, bu t di d no t con si de r th e ch il d to be si ck in th e

da y s be fo re hi s de at h to th e ex te nt he req ui red m ed ic al at te nt io n; in fact

, sh e te st ifi ed

he ap pe ared ha pp y an d la ug hi ng

. The ch il d’s m ot he r te st ifi ed sh e ha d to br in g a no se

su ct io n dev ic e to de fen da nt ’s ho m e th e d ay be fo re the ch il d’s deat h bec au se he ha d

a ru nn y no se an d a co ld

. Defen da nt ’s br ot he r te st ifi ed t h e c h i l d “al way s ha d th e

ru nn y no se .” Defen da nt ’s au nt te st ifi ed t h e c h i ld “ was al way s si ck ly-lo ok in g,”

e x p la in in g th at he al way s ha d a “ ru nn y no se ” an d “ co ld sym pt om s.” Acco rd in g to

de fen da nt ’s au nt

, th e ba by lo ok ed si ck ly th e la st ti m e sh e sa w hi m al iv e on Feb ru ary

14

, 20 12

. A wom an who da te d de fen da nt fo r fiv e m on th s pr io r to th e ch il d’s deat h,

te st ifi ed th e ch il d was “ al way s a l it tl e si ck [;] he al way s had ... a ru nn y no se [an d] a

co up le of br eat hi ng is su es whe n I wou ld se e hi m .” Bec au se he of te n so un de d “ a li tt le

co ng es te d,” sh e of

fere d so m e of h e r d a u gh te r’s co ld m ed ic in e to de fen da nt fo r th e

ch il d, wh ic h h el pe d.

Dr. Tray lo r rep or te d th at

, in de te rm in in g th e ch il d’ s c a u s e of de at h, he was

aware th at th e ch il d “ ha d so m e sn iff le s.” He was un aware , ho wev er, th at th e m ot he r

cl ai m ed “ th e ch il d whe ezed al l th e ti m e” an d th at th e ch il d ha d a hi st or y of “ la bo red

br eat hi ng .” Howev er, at tri al

, al th ou gh de fen da nt ’s m ot he r te st ifi ed th at th e ch il d

2 2

Dr. Tray lor explained tha t in an infant, whee zing is “more high pitched,” “kind of like a whine” 2 2
and is detec ted by

listening to the lung s with a stethoscope.

23“ ha d a whe eze,” th e ch il d’s m ot he r de ni ed th at th e ch il d was whe ezi ng in th e da y s

be fo re hi s d e a t h. It is un cl ear ho w kn owl ed ge of th e ch il d’s “ co ld sym pt om s,”

br eat hi ng is su es ,” or “ co ng es t[i on ]” wou ld ha ve al te r e d Dr. Tray lo r’s ul ti m at e

de te rm in at io n as to th e ch il d’s cau se of de at h, whi ch co ns id ered th e pr es en ce of earl y

bi la te ral bro nc ho pn eu m on ia in all th e lo be s o f th e ch il d’s l un gs

.

In cas es su ch as th i s o n e , whe re th e co nv ic ti on is ba se d on ci rcu m st an ti al

ev id en ce, th e p r o se cu ti on ’s cas e m us t “ ex cl ud e[] ev ery reas on ab le hypo th es is of

in no cen ce.” Sta te v. Cap tv il le

, 44 8 So .2d 67 6, 67 8 (La

. 1 9 8 4 ) ( ci ti ng La. R.S.

15 :4 38 ). W he th er th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al pr es en te d a su ffi ci en tl y reas on ab le

hypo th es is of in no cen ce th at a r a t i o n a l tri er of fact wou ld ne ces sa ril y en te rta in

reas on ab le do ub t is a qu es ti on fo r th is co ur t to co ns id er by “ ev al ua ti ng th e ev id en ce

in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pr os ecu ti on .” See Dav is

, 92 -1 62 3 at 11

, 63 7 So .2d

at 10 20

.

Defen da nt arg ue s th e st at e “ fai le d to pr ov e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th e m os t

c rit ic al fact un de rlyin g Dr. Tray lo r’s co nc lu si on –a nd

, th us , th e St at e’s th eo ry –t h a t

[d efen da nt ] sm ot he red hi s ch il d to de at h: th e so ur ce of th e in jury to th e in si de of th e

ch il d’s li p.” Dr. Tray lo r te st ifi ed th at th e ab rad ed co nt us io ns an d sm al l ve rti cal li ne ar

br ui si ng in si de of th e ch il d’s li ps res ul te d fro m th e ap pl ic at io n of “ fir m pr es su re th at

pr es se s ag ai ns t th e te et h.” The br ui si ng on th e ch il d’s in ne r up pe r an d lo wer l i p,

ex pl ai ne d Dr. Tray lo r, a r os e “ fro m pr es su re be in g ap pl ie d, whe th er fro m a ha nd or

th e in fan t’s face be in g face do wn in to a pi ll ow, jus t fir m pr es su re th at pr es se s ag ai ns t

th e te et h. And th e te et h pr ob ab ly are th e res ul t of -cau si ng th e ab ras io n an d br ui si ng

th ere.” Dr. Tho m a’s te st im on y ab ou t t h e “ pe te ch ia l br ui si ng ” on th e ch il d’s li ps

al ig ns wit h Dr. Traylo r’s th eo ry

.

24The op in io n of th e st at e’s ex pe rts th at th e br ui si n g to th e ch il d’s li ps was a

r e s u l t o f ap pl ie d fo rce was th e pr im ary ev id en ce th e ch il d was sm ot he red to de at h

.

N o ta bl y , th e ch il d’s m ot he r st at ed th at

, whe n sh e wen t to br in g th e no se su ct i o n

de vi ce to de fe n d a n t ’s h om e on th e m or ni ng of Feb ru ary 15

, sh e no ti ced th at th e

ch il d’s “ li p was bu st ed at th e to p , ” w h i c h de fen da nt sa id was cau se d by th e ch il d

fal li ng in th e ba th ro om th e d a y b e f o r e. Sh e pr ov id ed es se nt ia ll y th e sa m e acco un t

du rin g he r in te rv ie w sh or tl y aft er th e ch il d’s de at h. Thi s st at em en t is co ns is te nt wit h

th e st at em en ts de fen da nt ga ve du rin g al l th ree of hi s cu st od ia l in te rv ie ws. Howev er,

th e m ot he r te st ifi e d th at th e ch il d on ly h ad a si ng le br ui se un de r hi s up pe r li p. Sh e

ex pl ai ne d th at whe n sh e ex a mi n e d h i s m ou th , s he di d no t se e a br ui se on hi s lo wer

li p. Acco rd in gl y , th e si ng le in ci de nc e of br ui si ng ob se rv ed by th e ch il d’s m ot he r th e

da y be fo re he di ed was no t co ns is te nt wit h th e nu m be r an d na tu re o f t h e i n

ju rie s

fo un d by Dr. Tray l o r a n d D r

. Tho m a. The reco rd cl earl y sh ows th at th e ch il d ha d

“ br ui si ng on th e m

uc os al [in si de ] su rfac e of ... the up pe r an d th e lo wer lip ”– on le ft

si de of th e lo wer li p an d bi la te ra l l y on th e up pe r li p, wit h sm al l ve rti cal li ne ar

br ui si ng on th e lo wer i nn er li p an d th e up pe r in ne r li p, al ig ni ng wit h t he sp aci ng of

th e fro nt tee th , as wel l as “ a li tt le bru is in g u nd er the [ri gh t] al ar of the no se ” an d a n

ab ras io n be lo w th e le ft na res

. Eve n if th e ch il d su st ai ne d a bu st ed up pe r li p in a fal l

in th e ba th ro om on Feb ru ary 14 or a fal l fro m th e be d as rep or te d by de fen da nt to th e

EMT on th e m or ni ng of th e ch il d’s de at h, it ap pe ars su ch a fal l co ul d no t reas on ab ly

acco un t o f al l o f th e in

juri es to th e ch il d’s u pp er an d l owe r li ps

.

Howev er, ba se d on th is ev id en ce, th e jury co ul d ha ve reas on ab ly be li ev ed th e

st at e es ta bl is he d Dr. Tray lo r’s th eo ry , wit h whi ch Dr. Tho m a ag reed

, th at th e br ui si ng

was in fli ct ed by de fen da nt ’s ap pl ic at io n of m an ua l pr es su re to th e ch il d’s m ou th

.

Des pi te th e “ co ns is te nt wit h” sm ot he rin g te st im on y giv en by D rs

. T ra y lor an d Tho m a,

25Dr. Tray lo r’s su bs eq ue nt te st im on y di sp el le d an y pr ob le m un de r Sta te v. Wri gh t

,

01 -0 32 2, p . 13 (La. 12 /4 /0 2) , 83 4 S o.2 d 9 74 , th at m ay ha ve ari se n i n t hi s ca se

. 2 3

Eva lu at in g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pr os ecu ti on , gi vi ng

de fere nc e to th e jury’ s ob vi ou s as se ss m en t of cred i b i l i t y an d weig hi ng of th e

ev id en ce, an d wit ho ut su b s t i t u ti ng ou r own ap pr eci at io n of th e fact s fo r th at of th e

jury, th is co ur t fin ds th at th e al te rn at iv e hypo th es is of de at h by na tu ral cau se s in th is

cas e is no t su ffi ci en tl y reas on ab le th at a rat io na l juro r co ul d no t ha ve fo un d pr oo f of

gu il t b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t u nd er Ja ck so n

. Acco rd in gl y , th e jury’ s d eci si on 2 4

to co nv ic t i s u ph el d. 2 5

B. Ba ts on Chal le ng e (Ass ig nm en t o f Erro r IX)

Defen da nt co nt en ds th e tri al co ur t ab u s e d it s di sc ret io n “ whe n, de sp it e

ex pl ic it ly fin di ng a p r i m a f a c ie cas e of raci al di sc riminat io n in th e St at e’s us e of

pe rem pt or y ch al le ng es , it refu se d to as k th e St at e to pr ov id e race -n eu tra l reas on s fo r

it s ch al le ng es .” The tri al co ur t co m po un de d it s erro r, arg ue s de fen da nt

, by de nyin g

hi s Ba ts on ch al le ng e on th e gr ou nd th at

, ba se d on th e tri al co ur t’s art ic ul at ed reas on s,

de fen da nt fai le d to sh ow a syste m at ic ex cl us io n on th e ba si s of race by th e us e of th e

st at e’s pe rem

pt or y ch al le ng es

. The se erro rs , de fen da nt cl ai m s, req ui re rev ers al or , at

a mi n i mu m, rem an d fo r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng to al lo w th e st at e to pr od uc e

race -n eu tra l reas on s fo r it s st rik es an d al lo w th e de fen se to res po nd to th os e reas on s.

This court, in Wright

, found the state failed to establish a rape or attempted rape occur red wher e 2 3
the doctor te stified she could not be sure of the spec ific objec t that penetra ted the victim, noting it
could have been a thumb, br oomstick, mop handle, or a pe nis; because she could only definitively

say the injuries wer e “consistent with” the penetr ation by a penis. Wright , 01-0322 at 14-16, 834
So.2d at 986-87.

See Sm ith

, 94-3116 at 2, 661 So.2d at 443; Robert son , 96-1048 at 1, 680 So.2d at 1166; Davis

, 2 4 92-1623 at 11, 637 So.2d at 1020.

See Mussall , 523 So.2d at 1310. 2 5

26An ex erci se by th e st at e of it s pe rem pt or y st rik es to rem ov e po te nt ia l ju ro rs

fro m th e ve n i r e p a ne l so le ly on th e ba si s of race or ge nd er vi ol at es th e Equ al

Pro te ct io n Clau se of th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st it ut io n. Se e Ba ts on v. Ke ntuc k y , 47 6

U.S. 79 , 89 -9 0 (1 98 6)

. Ba ts on an d it s pro ge ny fro m th is co ur t p ro vi de a th ree- st ep

pr oc es s to gu id e co ur ts in ev al ua ti ng a cl ai m of raci al di sc riminat io n in th e vo ir di re

pr oc es s:

(1 ) a de fen da nt m

us t m ak e a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th at a pe rem pt or y ch al le ng e ha s be en ex erci se d o n t he ba si s o f rac e;

(2 ) if th e req ui si te sh owi ng ha s be en m ad e, th e pr os ecu ti on “ m us t de mon st rat e th at ‘perm is s i b l e raci al ly ne ut ral se le ct io n cri te ria an d pr oc ed ur es ha ve pr od uc ed th e

m on oc hr om at ic res ul t; ’” and

(3 ) in li gh t of th e pa rti es ’ su bm is si on s, th e tri al co ur t m us t de te rm in e if th e “ de fen da nt ha s es ta bl is he d p ur

po se fu l d is cri m in at io n.”

Sta te v. Gre en , 94 -0 88 7, p. 23 (La. 5/ 22 / 9 5 )

, 65 5 So .2d 27 2, 28 7 (q uo ti ng

Her na ndez v. New York , 50 0 U.S. 35 2, 35 8- 59 (1 99 1) ); acco rd Ba ts on , 47 6 U.S.

at 93 -9 5. Th e b u r d e n of pe rs ua si on ne ve r sh ift s fro m th e op po ne nt of th e st rik e.

Sta te v. Nels on , 10 -1 72 4, 10 -1 72 6

, p

. 1 5 ( La

. 3/ 13 /1 2)

, 85 So .3d 21

, 32 (q uo ti ng

Purk ett v. El em , 51 4 U.S. 76 5, 76 8 (1 99 5) ). Howev er, aft er th e o p p o n e nt of th e

st rik e es ta bl is he s a pr ima fa ci e cas e of raci al di sc riminat io n, th e bu rd en of pr od uc ti on

sh ift s to th e pr op on en t of th e st rik e to art ic ul at e race -n eu tra l reas on s fo r it s us e of

pe rem pt or y ch al le ng es

. See, e.g ., Sta te v. Bend er , 13 -1 79 4, pp

. 3- 4 (La. 9/ 3/ 14 ), 15 2

So .3d 12 6, 12 9; Nels on , 10 -1 72 4, 10 -1 72 6 at 10

, 85 So .3d at 29 ; Sta te v. Dra ug hn

, 2 6

I n Bender , 13-1794 at 4, 152 So.3d at 129, this court re cently rec og nized: 2 6

I n the second Batson step, the burden of production or g oing forwa rd shifts

to the prosec utor, who must o ff er a “ra ce- neutra l” explanation for his exercise of

pere mptory strikes. [ Gr een , 94-0887 at 25, 655 So.2d at 288]; L a.C.C r.P

. art. 795(C). The Batson explanation [by the prosec utor] does not need to be persua sive,
and unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the explanation, the rea son offe red
will be deeme d rac e-ne utral. Elie , 05-1569 at p. 5, 936 So.2d at 795.

2705 -1 82 5, p. 29 (La. 1/ 17 /0 7)

, 95 0 So .2d 58 3, 60 5; Gre en , 94 -0 88 7 at 25

, 65 5 So .2d

at 28 8. Not un ti l st ep s on e an d two of th e Ba ts on te st ha ve be en sa ti sf ie d is th e tri al

co ur t’s du ty un de r st ep th ree tri gg ered

. See Jo hns on v. Cal ifo rni a , 5 4 5 U

. S. 16 2

(2 00 5) , whi ch pro vi de s:

Th e fir st two Ba ts on st ep s go ve rn th e pr od uc ti on of ev id en ce t h a t al lo ws th e tri al co ur t to de te rm in e th e pe rs ua si ve ne ss of th e de fen da nt ’s

co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m

. “ It is no t un ti l th e th ird st ep th at th e pe rs ua si ve ne ss of th e jus ti fic at io n be co m es r e l e v a n t

– th e st ep in whi ch th e tri al co ur t de te rm in es whe th er th e op po ne nt of th e st rik e ha s carr ie d hi s bu rd en of

pr ov in g p ur

po se fu l d is cri m in at io n.”

Id

. , at 17 1 (q uo ti ng Purk ett

, 51 4 U.S. at 76 8)

. In su m m ary, th e res po ns ib il it y in th e

th ree- st ep Ba ts on te st fal ls fir st on th e op po ne nt of th e st rik e in st ep on e, th en on th e

pr op on en t of th e st rik e in st ep two

, an d la st ly, on th e tri al co ur t in s t e p t h r e e

. The

Jo hns on co ur t el ab or at ed on th e cri ti cal im po rta nc e o f th is tri pa rti te fram ewo rk :

The Ba ts on fram ewo rk is de si gn ed to pr od uc e act ua l an swe rs to

su sp ic io ns an d in fere nc es th at di sc riminat io n m ay ha ve in fect ed th e jury

se le c ti on pr oc es s. The in he ren t un cert ai nt y pr es en t in in qu iri es of
di sc rimina t o r y pu rp os e co un se ls ag ai ns t en ga gi ng in ne ed le ss an d
im pe rfe c t s pe cu la ti on whe n a di rect an swe r can be ob ta in ed by as ki ng

a s i mp le qu es ti on

. ... The th ree- st ep pr oc es s th us si m ul ta ne ou sl y

se rv es th e pu bl ic pu rp os es Ba ts on is d e s i g n e d to vi nd ic at e an d

en co ur ag es pr om

pt ru li ng s on ob

jecti on s to pe rem

p t o r y ch al le ng es wit ho ut su bs ta nt ia l d is ru pt io n o f th e jury sel ect io n p ro ces s.

Jo hns on , 54 5 U.S. at 17 2 (ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. Thi s th ree- pa rt pr oc es s

affo rd s “ th e tri al jud ge

... th e be ne fit of al l rel ev an t ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g th e

pr os ecu to r’s ex pl an at io n, be fo re de ci di ng whe th er it was m or e li ke ly th an no t th at th e

ch al le ng e was im

pr op erl y m ot iv at ed .” Id

. at 1 70

.

The pr oc ed ur e fo r pe rem

pt or il y st rik in g ve ni re pe rs on s is fo un d in La. C.Cr.P.

art . 79 5, wh ic h, i n re le va nt pa rt, p ro vi de s:

C. No pe rem

pt or y ch al le n g e mad e by th e st at e or th e de fen da nt sh al l be ba se d so le l y u p o n th e race or ge nd er of th e juro r. If an ob jecti on is m ad e th at th e st at e or de fen se ha s ex cl ud ed a juro r so le ly on th e ba si s of race or ge nd er, an d a p r i ma f a ci e cas e su pp or ti ng th at

28ob

jecti on is m ad e by th e ob jecti ng pa rty, th e co ur t m a y d e man d a

s a t i sf act or y race or ge nd er ne ut ral reas on fo r th e ex erci se of th e ch al le ng e, un le ss th e co ur t is sa ti sf ie d th at su ch reas on is ap pa ren t fro m th e v oi r di re ex am in at io n o f th e juro r. ...

To sa ti sf y Ba ts on ’s fir st -s te p req ui rem en t fo r t he es ta bl is hm en t of a pr ima

fa ci e cas e of pu rp os efu l di sc riminat io n, a m ov in g pa rty ne ed on ly pr od uc e “ ev id en ce

su ffi ci en t to pe rm it th e tri al jud ge to dr aw an in fere nc e th at di sc riminat io n ha s

oc cu rred .” Sta te v. El ie , 0 5- 15 69 , p . 6 (La. 7/ 10 /0 6)

, 93 6 So .2d 79 1, 79 6 (q uo ti ng

Jo hns on , 54 5 U.S. at 17 0)

. Co nc ern in g th e pr ima fa ci e cas e req ui red in th e fir st st ep

of th e Ba ts on tes t, t hi s co ur t i n Gre en st at ed :

The fir st st ep in th is pr oc es s pl aces a bu rd en of p ro du ct io n o r of

“ go in g fo rward ” on th e de fen da nt

. If th e de fen da nt i s u n a b l e to m ak e

o ut a pr ima fa ci e cas e of raci al di sc riminat io n, th en th e Ba t s o n

c h a l l e n ge fai ls an d it is no t ne ces sa ry fo r th e pr os ecu to r to art ic ul a t e

“ race -n eu tra l” ex pl an at io ns fo r hi s st rik es

. The de fen da nt m ay of fer an y fact s rel ev an t to th e qu es ti on of th e pr os ecu to r’s di sc riminat or y in te nt

to sa ti sf y th is bu rd en

. Su ch fact s in cl ud e, bu t a r e n ot li m it ed to

, a
pa tt ern of st rik es by a pr os ecu to r ag ai ns t m e mbers of a su sp ect cl as s,
st at em en ts or act io ns of th e pr os ecu to r whi ch su pp or t an in fere nc e th at th e ex erci se of pe rem

pt or y st rik es was mo t i va te d by im pe rm is si bl e

co ns id erat io ns , th e co m

po si ti on of th e ve ni re a n d of th e jury fin al ly

em pa ne le d, an d an y ot he r di sp arat e im pa ct up on th e su sp ect cl as s whi ch
is all eg ed to be th e v ic ti m of p ur po se fu l d is cri m in at io n.

Gre en , 94 -0 88 7 at 24

, 65 5 So .2d at 28 7- 88 (ci ta ti on s an d fo ot no te om it te d) ; se e al so

Ba ts on , 47 6 U.S. at 97

. Co nc ern in g th e di sp arat e im pa ct on a su sp ect cl as s, th is co ur t

no te d “ whi le de se rv in g of so m e weig ht in th e d e t e r m in at io n of whe th er pu rp os efu l

di sc riminat io n ex is ts

, is no t a di sp os it iv e fact or , si nc e ‘[a] n arg um en t rel at in g to th e

im pa ct of a cl as si fic at io n d oe s n ot alo ne sh ow i ts pu rp os e.’” Gre en , 94 -0 88 7 at 24

n.2 0, 6 55 So .2d at 2 88 n.2 0 (q uo ti ng Her na ndez , 50 0 U.S. at 36 2)

.

Here, th e tri al co ur t be ga n it s an al y si s of de fen da nt ’s B a t s o n ch al le ng e by

st at in g: “ The Co ur t wi ll st at e fo r th e rec or d i ts fin di ng in th ere’s b een a pr im a fac ie

sh owi ng .” Thi s st at em en t by th e tri al co ur t in di cat es th ere ha s be en a de te rm in at io n

29th at a “ pr im a faci e sh owi ng ” ha s be en m ad e by de fen da nt

. The Ba ts on an al y si s th en

req ui res th e st at e to be cal le d on to of fer race -n eu tra l reas on s. Howev er, th e tri al

co ur t pro ceed ed to of

fer reas on s why th e st at e ex erci se d all se ve n of its pe rem pt or y

ch al le ng es , rat he r th an req ui rin g t he st at e to do so as r eq ue st ed by defen se co un se l.

Su bs eq ue nt ly, aft er th e tri al co ur t art ic ul at ed reas on s fo r th e st at e’s pe rem pt or y

ch al le ng es rel at iv e to th es e s e v e n p ot en ti al juro rs , t he tri al co ur t fo un d “ th ere is no

pr im a faci e sh owi ng a t a l l a s t o syste m at ic ex cl us io n on th e ba si s of race by th e

St at e’s ex erci se of it s pe rem pt or y ch al le ng es .” Not wit hs ta nd in g th e la tt er ru li ng , th e

tri al co ur t la te r st at ed th at it wou ld “ al lo w” co un se l fo r th e st at e, if he wis he d, “ to

jus ti fy or s ta te for

th e rec or d i ts race ne ut ral ... re as on s,” c on cl ud in g “ bu t t ho se are

m y ru li ng s.” The pr os ecu to r de cl i ne d th e tri al co ur t’s in vi ta ti on rel at iv e to

2 7

de fen da nt ’s Ba ts on ch al le ng e, an d th e tri al co ur t “ no te [d ] th e res pe ct iv e o bjec ti on s

of co un se l as to th e Co ur t’s ru li ng .”

Fu rth er co nf

us in g th e m at te r, whe n la te r reca pp in g it s ru li ng in co nne ct io n wit h

de fen da nt ’s Ba ts on ch al le ng e, as well as a ch al le n g e mad e by t he st at e pu rs ua nt to

Geo rg ia v. McCo ll um , 50 5 U.S. 42 (1 99 2) (p ro hi bi ti ng de fen se ch al le ng es ba se d on

race ), th e tri al co ur t ap pa ren tl y co ns id ered th e fact or s s et for th in Gre en rel at iv e to

de fen da nt ’s bu rd en of pr ov in g a “ pr ima fa ci e cas e of raci al di sc riminat io n ” in st ep

on e o f th e Ba ts on tes t. See Gre en , 94 -0 88 7 a t 2 4, 6 55 So .2d at 2 87 -8 8. 2 8

Be cause the trial court alre ady articula ted rea sons why the state excused potential jurors and had 2 7

actua lly ruled, such a

prac tice is akin to g iving someone the answe rs in advanc e of a test.

Under Gr een , the defe ndant’s mere highlig hting of the state’s use of five of its seven pere mptory 2 8 challeng es “ag ainst Bla cks” is one fac tor in deter mining whether a prima facie showing was made.
See Id

. 94-0887 at 24 n.20, 655 So.2d at 288 n.20; cf

. State v. Gibbs

, 31,370, p. 6 (L a.App. 2 Cir. 2/24/99), 728 So.2d 9 4 5, 949 (Where the state “exerc ised pere mptory challeng es ag ainst 75% of
black prospec tive jurors,” the appe llate cour t observed tha t defe ndant “has arg uably made a prima
fac ie case of discriminatory strikes.”). Thus, while the mere number of strikes ag ainst a particula r
g roup of c itiz ens does not mea n there is discrimination, thi s fac tor alone c an be pe rsuasive.

30In li gh t of th e tri al co ur t’s act io ns in th is cas e, th is co ur t is in it ia ll y ta sk ed wit h

at te m pt in g to de te rm in e whe th er th e vo ir di re pro ces s ev er re ach ed th e se co nd st ep

of th e Ba ts on te st

. Des pi te th e tri al co ur t’s eq ui vo cat io n as to whe th er a pr ima fa ci e

cas e was es ta bl is he d, in th e ro le as a co ur t ta sk ed wit h rev ie win g whe th er th e

co ns ti tu ti on al gu aran te e of eq ua l pr ot ect io n was m et

, th is co ur t is no t free to di sr eg ard

th e tri al co ur t’s in it ia l un qu al if i e d fin di ng th at a pr ima fa ci e sh owi ng was m ad e.

Fu rth erm or e, in th e ab se nc e of a pr ima fa ci e sh owi ng in th is cas e, it wou ld ha ve be en

un ne ces sa ry fo r th e tri al co ur t to en ga ge in an y fu rth er an al y si s un de r Ba ts on

. See

Gre en , 9 4- 08 87 at 24 -2 5, 65 5 So .2d at 28 8. Thu s, ba se d on th e tri al co ur t’s in it ia l

st at em en t th a t a pr ima fa ci e sh owi ng of raci al di sc riminat io n was m ad e by th e

de fen se , rev ie w and an al y si s o f th e o th er s te ps in th e Ba ts on te st are re qu ire d.

Upo n a pr ima fa ci e sh owi ng by t h e o p p o n e n t of a st rik e, Ba ts on an d it s

pr og en y req ui re th e pr op on en t o f a pe rem pt or y ch al le ng e to of

fer a race -n eu tra l

ex pl an at io n fo r s t rik in g a po te nt ia l juro r. Lou is ia na C.Cr.P. art

. 79 5( C) se em s to 2 9

affo rd th e tri al co ur t di sc ret io n in th is reg ard : “ th e co ur t m ay demand a sa ti sf act or y

race or ge nd er ne ut ral reas on fo r th e ex erci se o f t h e ch al le ng e, unl es s the co urt is

sa tis fie d tha t su ch rea so n is ap pa r e n t f ro m the vo ir di re ex amina tio n of the

juro r .” (Em

ph as is ad de d.)

In El ie

, th is co ur t ev al ua te d La. C.Cr.P. art

. 79 5( C) in li gh t of th e th ree- pa rt te st

en un ci at ed in Ba ts on

. The tri al co ur t in El ie di d no t to req ui re th e st at e to of fer an y

ex pl an at io n fo r s tri ki ng th ree po te nt ia l juro rs si nc e th e ex cl us io na ry reas on s were

ob vi ou s fro m th e reco rd

, an d th e tri al co ur t de ni ed de fen d a n t ’s B at so n ch al le ng e.

El ie

, 05 -1 56 9 at 7, 93 6 So .2d at 79 6. In rev ie win g de fen da nt ’s ch al le ng e of th e tri al

See Nelson , 10-1724, 10-1726 a t 11, 85 So.3d at 30. 2 9

31co ur t’s ru li ng , th is co ur t cau ti on ed th at th e pr oc ed ur e ut il iz ed by th e tri al co ur t in El ie

an d a ut ho riz ed by L a. C.Cr.P. ar t. 7 95 (C):

do es no t acco rd wit h th e ob se rv at io n in Jo hns on th at th e C ou rt’s

ev ol vi ng Ba ts on juri sp ru de nc e “ is de si gn ed to pr od uc e ac tu al an sw er s
to su sp ic io ns an d i nf

eren ces th at di sc riminat io n m ay ha ve in fect ed th e jury se le ct io n pr oc es s

... . [T]he in he ren t un cert ai nt y pr es en t in in qu iri es of di sc riminat or y pu rp os e co un se l ag ai ns t en ga gi n g i n ne ed le ss an d
im pe rfec t sp ecu la ti on whe n a d i rect an swe r can be ob ta in ed by as ki ng

a si m pl e qu es ti on .” Jo hns on , 54 5 U.S. at 17 2

, 1 2 5 S .Ct. at 24 18

. [Em ph as is ad de d.]

El ie

, 05 -1 56 9 at 7, 93 6 So .2d at 79 7. W hi le reco g n i z i n g t he te ns io n be twee n La.

C

. C r

. P

. a r t

. 79 5( C) an d th e se co nd st ep of th e Ba ts on te st

, as “ el ab or at ed up on i n

Jo hns on , Mil le r-El [ v. Dretk e , 54 5 U.S. 23 1 (2 00 5 ) ], a n d [ R ic e v.] Col li ns [

, 54 6

U.S. 33 3 (20 06 )],” th e m ajor it y of th is co ur t fo un d th at th e pr act ic e ut il iz ed by th e 3 0

tri al co ur t in El ie was acce pt ab le un de r La. C.Cr.P. art . 7 95 (C). See E l i e , 0 5

- 1 5 6 9

at 7-8 , 14 , 93 6 S o.2 d a t 7 97 , 80 1.

Ult im at el y , in El ie

, a no nc ap it al cas e, no twi th st an di ng th at t h e t r i al co ur t

a r ti cu la te d race -n eu tra l reas on s fo r se ve ral of th e pr os ecu ti on ’s st rik es , th is co ur t

fo un d no di sc riminat or y in te nt by th e pr os ecu ti on an d, th eref or e, no eq ua l pr ot ect io n

vi ol at io n. See Id

. , 05 -1 56 9 at 14

, 93 6 So .2d at 80 1. Tha t ru li ng res te d on th is co ur t’s

ab il it y , as a rev ie win g c ou rt, t o d is cern th e tr ia l co ur t’s an al y si s at each of th e th ree

st ep s of th e Ba ts on in qu iry. At th e fir st st ep , th is co ur t di sc ern ed th at th e tri al co ur t

ha d m ad e a pr ima fa ci e fin di ng

. At th e se co nd st ep , th is co ur t ob se rv ed th at th e tri al

co ur t art ic ul at ed race -n eu tra l reas on s fo r se ve ral st rik es an d th e st at e ha d art ic ul at ed

reas on s fo r ot he r ch al le ng ed st rik es

. See id

. ., 0 5- 15 69 at 7-9 , 93 6 S o.2 d a t 7 96 -9 8.

At th e th ird st ep , th is co ur t as cert ai ne d th at th e tri al co ur t’s ru li ng to de ny th e Ba ts on

ch al le ng es was ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le an d m ad e aft er co ns id eri ng “ arg um en t by bo th

See Elie , 05-1569 at 4-5, 936 So.2d at 795. 3 0

32si de s” an d eva lu at in g th e pr os ecu to r’s de m ean or du rin g vo ir di re , rat he r th an ba se d

on “ irr at io na l or in tu it iv e reas on s.” See id

. , 0 5

- 15 69 at 12

, 93 6 So .2d at 80 0.

Bec au se th e El ie co ur t was ab le to rev ie w t he su ffi ci en cy of each an al y ti cal st ep , i t

was ab le to de fer to th e tri al co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at th ere ha d be en no di sc riminat or y

in te nt

. See El ie

, 05 -1 56 9 at 14

, 93 6 So .2d at 8 0 1 (ci ti ng Her na ndez

, 50 0 U.S. at

36 4, an d Rice v. Col li ns , 54 6 U.S. 33 3, 33 9 (2 00 6) (“ A rev ie win g co ur t owe s th e tri al

co ur t’s ev al ua ti on s of di sc riminat or y in t en t gr eat de fere nc e an d sh ou ld no t rev ers e

th em un le ss th ey

are cl earl y

erro ne ou s.”)

.

The reco rd in th e in st an t cas e hi n d e rs ou r ab il it y to di sc ern a cl earl y de fin ed

th ree- st ep Ba ts on an al y si s. Fro m all th at ap pe ars , th is co ur t i s l eft to co nc lu de th at

th e tri al co ur t co nf

la te d th e th ree st ep s. Afte r fin di ng th at th e de fen se ha d es ta bl is he d

a pr ima fa ci e cas e, th e tri al co ur t la te r de cl ared th ere was no pr ima fa ci e sh owi ng

.

A fin di ng of a pr ima fa ci e cas e is no t on ly a th res ho ld fo r reac hi ng th e ot he r Ba ts on

st ep s, b u t a ls o se rv es to fram e th e is su e fo r th e pa rti es an d th e tri al co ur t. 3 1

Fu rth erm or e, co nt rav en in g th e El ie co ur t’s ad m on is hm en t rel at iv e to th e se co nd st ep

in th e Ba ts on in qu iry, rat he r th an as ki ng th e pr os ecu t i o n f o r act ua l reas on s fo r it s

pe rem pt or y st rik es , th e tri al co ur t sp ecu la te d as to wha t race -n eu tra l reas on s mi g h t

ex is t. In su m , wit ho ut co ns is te nt ly id en ti fy in g fo r it se lf whe th er or no t a pr ima fa ci e

cas e ha d be en es ta bl is he d at s te p on e, an d wit ho ut as cert ai ni ng th e pr os ecu ti on ’s

act ua l reas on s at ste p two

, th e tri al co ur t pro vi de d in su ffi ci en t ass ur an ce t ha t, when

i t c a me t o st ep th ree, th e co ur t ha d fram ed th e is su e su ch th at it co ul d su ffi ci en t l y

ev al ua te th e “ weig ht an d cred ib il it y to be gi ve n to th e

... raci al ly-neu tra l

ex pl an at io ns .” See El ie , 0 5- 15 69 at 12 , 9 36 So .2d at 8 0 0

. M o r e ov er, as th is co ur t

See Batson

, 476 U.S. at 93-94 (indicating that a prima fa ci e ca se identifies “the rele vant fac ts 3 1

g iv[ ing] rise to an infe renc e of discr iminatory purpose.” ).

33pr ev io us ly ex pl ai ne d, th e fir st two st ep s m ay be co m bi ne d whe n a pa rty “ of

fere d race

ne ut ral reas on s” in res po ns e to a Ba ts on ch al le ng e. Nels on , 10 -1 72 4, 10 -1 72 6 at 10

,

85 So .3d at 29

. Eve n th en , ho wev er, a d i s ti nc t “ th ird st ep of weig hi ng [th e

ch al le ng er’s] pro of

an d t he “ race -n eu tra l re as on s” is “ cri ti cal .” Id

.

The reco rd he re al so fai ls t o jus ti fy de pa rti ng fro m th e El ie co ur t’s cau ti on

ag ai ns t a tri al co ur t su rm is in g no n- di sc riminat or y reas on s

. In co ns is te nt st at em en ts

i n t h e r eco rd de m on st rat e pr ob le m s wit h al l th ree st ep s of Ba ts on

. Thi s co ur t

rei te rat es co nc ern ab ou t th e se co nd st ep

. The juri sp ru de nc e of th e Uni te d St at es

Su pr em e Co ur t on Ba ts on is “ ev ol vi ng ” an d “ is de si gn ed to pr od uc e ac tu al an sw er s

to su sp ic io ns an d in fere nc es th at di sc riminat io n m ay ha ve in fect ed th e jury se le ct io n

pr oc es s.” El ie

, 05 -1 56 9 at 7, 93 6 So .2d at 79 7 (q uo ti ng Jo hns on , 54 5 U.S. at 17 2)

.

In de ed

, th e cau ti on fu rn is he d by th is co ur t in El ie was rece nt ly ech oe d by fo ur of th e

ei gh t Ju st ic es who cu rren tl y co m pr is e th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t. Alt ho ug h 3 2

de fen da nt ha s no t as ke d no r do es t h i s c o u r t he re pu rp or t to de ci de th e

co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e la s t cl au se be gi nn in g wit h th e wor d “ un le ss ” of La. C.Cr.P.

art

. 79 5( C) pe r se , th e co nt in ue d sc ru ti ny gi ve n to th at art ic le sh ou ld no t go un no ti ced

by the be nc h a nd ba r of

th is st at e.

Sp ecu la ti on by a tri al co ur t as to wha t th e st at e’s reas on s m ig ht ha ve be en fo r

s t r i k i n g p o te nt ia l juro rs , m ay , i f th e reco rd is su ffi ci en tl y cl ear on al l th ree st ep s o f

th e Ba ts on te st

, be su ffi ci en t to sa ti sf y th e req ui rem en ts of Ba ts on

. El ie was su ch a

cas e. Howev er, no th in g in El ie co un se le d th at ha vi ng th e tri al co ur t su pp ly reas on s

fo r th e pr os ecu ti on ’s pe rem pt or y st rik es was a so un d pr act ic e. Thi s pr act ic e do es no t

See Williams v. Loui siana

, 136 S.Ct

. 2156, 2156 (2016) (Jus tices Br ey er, Ginsburg

, Kag an, and 3 2 Sotomay or concur

red with a rema

nd for further evalua

ting a Batson claim, citing inter alia Elie

, 05- 1569, 936 So. 2d 791). Be cause of the death of J ustice Antonin Scalia, t h e S u p reme Court was comprised of

eig ht members.

34co nf

or m w it h Ba ts on an d it s pr og en y , whi ch m an da te th at th e st at e pr ov id e

race -n eu tra l reas on s fo r th e ch al le ng e ev en whe re th os e reas on s are ap pa ren t fro m th e

vo ir di re ex am in at io n. Cl earl y , th e pr oc ed ur e ou tl in ed in La. C.Cr.P. art

. 79 5( C) m us t

y ie ld to th e de m an ds of th e Equ al Pro t e c t i o n C l a us e of th e Co ns ti tu ti on (as

reco gn iz ed in th e ev ol vi ng Ba ts on juri sp ru de nc e). The refo re, th e tri al co ur t’s fai lu re

to cal l on th e st at e in th is cas e to pr ov id e race -n eu tra l reas on s up on it s in it ia l fin di ng

th at a pr ima fa ci e sh owi ng ha d be en m ad e res ul te d in a vi ol at io n of de fen da nt ’s an d

th e p ot en ti al juro rs ’ eq ua l p ro te ct io n ri gh ts an d d efen da nt ’s rig ht to a fai r tr ia l.

The Ba ts on Co ur t de cl in ed to craf t a rem ed y fo r th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n vi ol at io n

it ha d id en ti fie d, in st ead le av in g it to th e lo wer c o ur ts to de te rm in e th e ap pr op ria te

rem ed y . See Ba ts on , 47 6 U.S. at 99 n.2 4. The m os t co m m on rem ed ie s ad op te d b y

tri al co ur ts are to ei th er di sc ha rg e th e ve ni re an d se le c t a n e w jury fro m a pa ne l

un ta in te d by t he di sc riminat or y ta ct ic s or to di sa l l o w t he di sc riminat or y ch al le ng es

an d res um e se le ct io n wit h th e i mp r o p erl y ch al le ng ed juro rs res eat ed on th e ve ni re.

See Nels on , 10 -1 72 4, 10 -1 72 6 at 18 -2 5, 85 So .3d at 33 -3 8. Howev er, th es e rem ed ie s

are u na va il ab le when th e err or is rai se d i n a po st -tr ia l p os tu re.

Po st -tr ia l rem ed ie s in cl ud e rev ers al of de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on , wit h a rem an d

fo r a ne w tri al

, or rem an di ng fo r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng to ha ve th e pr os ecu to r of fer

race -n eu tra l ex pl an at io ns fo r th e st at e’s st rik es

. Und er th e fact s of th i s cas e, it is 3 3

do ub tfu l th at an ev id en ti ary he ari ng wou ld se rv e to rect ify t h e co ns ti tu ti on al

vi ol at io ns th at res ul te d fro m th e tri al co ur t’s fai lu re to or de r th e pr os e c u t or in th is

See Nelson

, 10-1724, 10-1726 at 25, 85 S o

. 3 d at 38 (a substantial violation of defe ndant’s 3 3

constitutional rig ht to a fair trial war rante d reve rsal of defe ndant’s conviction and sentenc e); State

v. Give ns , 99-3518, p. 8 (L a. 1/17/01), 776 So.2d 443, 451 (this court rema nded for an evidentiar

y hear ing afte r finding the trial court failed to require the prosec utor to offe r g ender -neutra l explanations for her strike s); State v. M yers , 99-1803, pp. 5-6 (L a. 4/11/00), 761 So.2d 498, 502 (the trial court’s err or in failing to addre ss defe nse counsel’s Batson challeng es war rante d reve rsal
of def endant’ s conviction).

35cas e to art ic ul at e race -n eu tra l reas on s for hi s st rik es , as req ui red aft er th e tri al co ur t

m ad e a pr ima fa ci e fin di ng

. A m ean in gf ul he ari ng on th is is su e is al l bu t im po ss ib le 3 4

be cau se th e st at e can si m pl y rei te rat e th e sa m e reas on s al r e a d y craf te d by th e tri al

co ur t. The in ad eq ua cy of su ch a rem ed y in th is cas e is m ag ni fie d by th e fact th at th e

pr os ecu to r in th is cas e is no lo ng er wit h th e di st ric t at to rn ey ’s of fic e an d th ere is a

ne w di st ric t at to rn ey

. The refo re, de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce are va cat ed

,

an d t hi s m at te r is rem an de d fo r a n ew tr ia l. 3 5

DEFENDANT’S CONVICT IO NS AND SENTE NCES ARE VACATED;

REMANDED TO TH E TRI AL COURT FOR A NEW TRI AL.

See Myer s , 99-1803 at 6-7, 761 So.2d 502-03. 3 4

I n light of this deter

mination, all other issues raised by defe ndant ar e pre termitted. 3 5

361 11/16/16

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 201 4

- KA

- 2153

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

RODRICUS C. CRAWFORD

ON APPEAL
FROM THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE PARISH OF CADDO

JOHNSON , C. J

. concurs in the result, and dissents in part for the reasons

assigned by Knoll, J

.11/16/16

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 201 4

- KA

- 2153

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

RODRICUS C. CRAWFORD

KNOLL , J

. , concurs in part and dissents in part.

I agree fully with the Court’s Batson analysis and strongly believe that this

defendant’s conviction and death sentence could be vacated on that basis.

However, I heartily disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there was

sufficient evidence under Jac kson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781,

2789 (1979), to sustain defendant’s conviction for the first

- degree murder of his

infant son. As the majority recognizes, where the conviction is based on

circumstantial evidence, the prosecution’s case m ust “exclude[] every reasonable

hypothesis of innocence.” State v. Captville , 448 So.2d 676, 678 (1984). Under

Jackson , “ the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ” 443 U.S. at 319, 99

S.Ct. at 2789. Indeed, the touchstone of this inquiry is reasonableness. If the jury’s

verdict is not reasonable, the defendant’s conviction cannot be mai ntained.

Considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no

rational trie r fact could have concluded that the St ate presented sufficient evidence

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the specific intent to kill

his one

- year

- old son or that the defendant killed the infant while he was engaged in

the perpetration or attempted perpetration of cruelty to juveniles or second degree2 cruelty to juveniles

. Id. ; La. Rev. Stat. 14:30(A)(1), (3). T he State’s entire case

rested on forensic pathologist Dr. James G. Traylor’s conclusion that the cause of

the infant’s death was “smothering with the mechanism of deat h being asphyxia

. ”

Indeed, during cross

- examination, Dr. Traylor admitted, because none of the

child’s othe r evident injuries caused his death (i.e., had “anything to do with

smothering”), the only evidence that led him to this conclusion that the infant was

smothered was the abraded contusions on the undersides of the infant’s upper lip

and lower lip :

Q. Now, Dr. Traylor

–

A. Yes.

Q.

– other than this picture right here

– well, let me backtrack and rephrase. We’ve got all kind of evidence of possible abuse

, right? There’s stuff on the butt. There’s stuff on the head, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. None of that other s tuff has anything to do with smothering; that’s correct, isn’t it?

A. That’s correct.

Q. This is the only picture [showing the abrasions and contusions
under the infant ’ s lip], the only thing that led you to the conclusion it was a smothering, correct?

A. Yes.

. . . . Q. But other than

– I want to make sure I’m correct on this, and then I’ll get off this horse. Other than this (Indicating), none of those other signs of possible abuse have anything to do with smothering; is that
correct?

A. Smothering in and of itself, no.

Q. So this is it, right?

A. That’s it.

Indeed, t he most that Dr. Traylor and Caddo Parish C oroner Dr. Todd Thoma

could opine about these injuries is that this bruising was “ consistent ” with

smothering:3 Those are the typ ical injuries that if you’re lucky enough to see with smothering other than possibly maybe a little abrasion to the tip of the nose from either a pillow or a sheet; you may see that. But typically, you know, it’s referred to as a gentle homicide. Sometimes you don’t get any indication of the smothering at all. I think it’s fortunate that that was there in this particular case.

In State v. Wright , we determined that such testimony on its own is not legally

sufficient to sustain a conviction and to carry the State’s burden to prove specific

intent beyond a reasonable doubt. 01

- 0322 , p. 14 (La. 12/4/02), 834 So.2d 974,

986. Indeed, in Wright

, the jury convicted the defendant of first

- degree murder,

fi nding, among other aggravating factors, that the defendant was engaged in the

perpetration of an aggravated or forcible rape when he committed the murder of his

girlfriend’s six

- year

- old daughter. Id. , pp. 1

- 2

, 834 So.2d at 978. M edical expert s ,

after exam ining the victim’s vaginal and rectal areas, opined that the victim had

been vaginally and anally penetrated. Id. , pp. 13, 834 So.2d at 985

- 86.

Nevertheless , they could not determine whether the injuries to the girl’s vaginal

area were caused by a sexual a ssault or caused by the victim being catheterized. Id.

Similarly, there was evidence the victim’s anus had been penetrated several times.

Id. However, one expert could only opine that the injuries were “consistent with

being penetrated by something anally, ” while another could not identify the object

that penetrated the child, responding affirmatively when asked whether it could

have been “a finger, thumb, broomstick, mop handle stick ... [or] male penis.” Id.

,

pp. 13

- 14, 834 So.2d at 986. This Court held t hat such testimony was not sufficient

to sustain the State’s burden of proving specific intent:

While this strongly suggests that defendant sexually assaulted the victim, we cannot say that the state successfully proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that the murder took place during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an aggravated or forcible rape.

Id. , p.14, 834 So.2d at 986 (emphasis added).4 While in Wright the Court ultimately determined there were sufficient other

grounds to support the defendant’s conviction, including (but not limited to) the

defendant’s admission that he regularly beat the child, the excess of 2,000 blood

spatters across the victim’s home, the bloody children’s underwear and bloody

towels hidden under the child’s bed, and the various lies and inconsistent

statements the defendant gave to investigators, 1 the same is not true here. Dr.

Traylor and Dr. Thoma both admitted they based their entire conclusion that the

infant was smothered to death on the bruising in his inner lips, which they both

stated was “consistent with” smothering. The majority attempts to minimize this

significant issue by arguing that, in rebuttal, “Dr. Traylor stated, that however he

phrased his testimony during the state’s case

- in

- chief and under cro ss

- examination,

his unequivocal opinion was that ‘the death of the child is the result of asphyxia,

secondary to smothering.’” Opn., p. 22. The problem with crediting this statement

is that nothing in Dr. Traylor ’s testimony or in his autopsy report provid e s an

adequate factual basis for his conclusion or for his expressed certitude that

smothering was the cause of the child’s death

. Simply put, the only thing Dr.

Traylor can state with certainty is that someone applied pressure to the infant’s

mouth at som e unspecified point and, critically, for some unspecified period of

time . He cannot say for how long the pressure was applied and he cannot relate th e

application of that pressure to the child’s death. Dr. Traylor’ s testimony bears this

out. On direct exam ination in the State’s case

- in

- chief, Dr. Traylor testified that the

abrasions or contusions upon which he relied to arrive at his conclusion could have

been caused by applied pressure to the infant’s mouth for a period of time that is

much shorter than wh at would be necessary to suffocate the child:

1 Id. , pp. 11

- 12, 834 So.2d at 984

- 85.5 Q. Taking State Exhibit 10 and State Exhibit 11 together, is it your opinion that those two photographs depict a condition of this baby that is, in your opinion, the result of applied pressure to the baby’s mou th against the teeth?

A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Traylor, in order to obtain that type of abrasion or contusion in the upper and lower lips, do you have an opinion about how long that pressure would have to be maintained against the child’s teeth?

A. Well, you could c ertainly cause that from

– simply from several seconds worth of pressure . When I say “several seconds,” you know, ten, fifteen, twenty seconds, but in order to

– you know, if the intent is to actually smother the child , it’s not like television. You don’t put your hand over somebody’s mouth and ten seconds later, they pass out. It actually takes a lot longer than that. So, you know, whether or not the individual that applied the pressure applied pressure forty

- five

seco nds to a minute or whatever, but once the individual that the pressure is being applied to passes out, then they are not breathing

anymore.
Q. So would it be your opinion that the time it would take to cause death by smothering in an infant of this type w ould be in the forty

- f ive second range or different?

A. Somewhere around there. Maybe a minute total, you know, to have cause the death, at least a minute or more.

Critically, to reach his conclusion that the cause of the child’s death was

smothering, Dr. Traylor must assume “the intent is to actually smother the child.”

The evidence of bilateral bruising under the child’s lips only indicates to him that

someone placed pressure on the child’s mouth for “several seconds...you know,

ten, fifteen, twenty seconds .” Dr. Traylor must assume, without any evidentiary

support, that pressure was applied for a much longer period of time in order to

arrive at the conclusion that the infant was smothered.

The problem is heightened by a dearth of evidence establishing defendant’s

specific intent. Under the State’s theory of the case, specific intent was established

because when defendant placed his hand over the infant’s mouth, he did so with

the sole intent ion of smothering him to death. However, if the injuries to the inner

lips are merely “consistent with” smothering, and other scenarios could not be6 excluded, then the S tate’s theory establishing the element of specific intent also

collapses. That bruising was the only proof the S tate offered of specific intent,

much like it was the only injury that led Drs. Thoma and Traylor to conclude the

victim’s death was a homicide. Because the State offered no evidence to prove the

injuries to the child’ s inner lips were caused by

— rather than “consistent with”

—

smothering, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,

the S tate failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted with

specific intent to kill the baby.

The other sig ns of abuse evident on the child cannot salvage the State’s case.

Dr. Traylor’s autopsy revealed multiple indications of abuse

— including, bruising

to the infant’s forehead and both sides of his face, subcutaneous injuries to the

infant’s scalp over the ba ck and the front and behind the right ear, and

subcutaneous hemorrhages to the infant’s buttocks. Throughout trial, the State

sought to plant the inference that defendant inflicted these injuries on the baby in

the hours in which defendant was alone with t he child immediately before his

death. Significantly, however, although every witness who saw the infant on the

evening of February 15, 2012, testified that they did not see any bruising on the

child’s face before he went to bed, each of these witnesses al so testified they never

perceived any bruises on the child after he was found unresponsive in the

defendant’s room. For instance, Abigail Crawford testified on direct examination

during the State’s case

- in

- chief about the appearance of the infant after he was

found unresponsive:

Q. And did you see any bruising on his face?

A. No, sir.

Q. And you got a good look at him?7 A. I had a good look at him. I was looking because when he said something is wrong with Bobo I’m observing Bobo to see is any

– you know, w hat is wrong with him.

Q. Okay. So you looked at his face.

A. I’m looking at him, I’m looking all over him.

Q. I mean, was the baby face up, you were holding by his

– A. Face up.

Q.

– by his back?

A. Yes.

Q. So his face was facing your face?

A. Yes.

Q. And you saw no bruising about his forehead or his cheeks?

A. None.

Q. Did you see any scratch on the right side of his nose?

A. I did not.

Q. Okay. So no apparent injury to the child?

A. No.

Q. Correct?

A. Yes.

Given the dark pigmentation of the child’s skin, as evidenced in the autopsy

photos, it is unsurprising that these bruises were not perceptible to anyone except

the medical professionals who examined the infant after his death and the child’s

mother who testified to seeing a bruise on the side of t he child’ s face when she

brought clothes and a nose syringe for the infant over to the defendant’s house

prior to the child’s last evening alive. If the bruises were not perceptible the

evening before the child’s death, then the bruises could have been pre sent for quite

some time and could have been inflicted by any number of people, including the

child’s mother with whom the child primarily lived. Because, as Dr. Traylor

admitted, “[t]here’s really no accurate way to date a bruise,” this evidence certainly

is not sufficient to sustain the State’s burden of proving specific intent.8 Accordingly, although I concur in the majority’s conclusion the Batson error

in this case would otherwise warrant vacation of defendant’s sentence and

conviction, I dissent from the majority’s determination that the State presented

sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof. Thus, I would reverse and vacate

defendant’s conviction and sentence and would dismiss the indictment.1 11/16/16

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2014

- KA

- 2153

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

RODRICUS C. CRAWFORD

ON APPEAL

FROM THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE PARISH OF CADDO

CRICHTON, J. , dissents in part

.

I dissent from the majority opinion solely as to the remedy imposed . The

majority reverse s the decision of the trial court based upon the trial judge’s

articulation of race

- neutral reasons under Batson v. Kentucky

, 476 U.S. 79 (1986 ).

Before hastily employing the drastic remedy of reversing the conviction, I would

instead remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to permit the

state to offer race

- neutral reasons for its peremptory strikes in accordance with the

second step of Batson

. See

, e.g. , Foster v. Chatman

, -- U.S.

-- , 136 S. Ct. 1737,

1747 (2016) (“[I]f that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a race

neutral basis for striking the juror in question .”) ( emphasis added) ( summarizing

Batson three step process ).

In reversing the conviction, the majority speculatively as serts that a

“meaningful hearing on this issue is all but impossible ” in the district court. But, i n

my view, a meaningful hearing on this issue in the trial court is certainly possible

,

and in fact could be easily accomplished, because : (i) there were at least two

lawyers of record, one of whom is still employed by the district attorney’s office

and could represent the state on remand

, and (ii) despite the fact that the original

lead prosecutor no longer works for the district attorney, he is presumably2 available should the current district attorney subpoena him to testify or otherwise

seek his participation in such a hearing

. 1 Compare

, e.g. , State v. Myers , 99

- 1803

(La. 4/11/00), 761 So. 2d at 503 ( reversing conviction after finding no opportunity

for a “meaningful hearing” on remand for consideration of Batson firs t step where

trial judge had died). As a result, I believe that the requirements of Batson would

be satisfied by first remanding to the trial court to permit the state to, in the first

instanc e, advance race

- neutral reasons for its peremptory strikes.

1 T he jury of 12 persons in this case was comp rised of nine white individuals and three African
American individuals