Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Darryl CLAYTON and Joann Isom
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1982-09-07
Citations: 427 So. 2d 827
Docket Number: Nos. 82-KA-0730, 81-KA-1514
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Darryl CLAYTON and Joann Isom.
Judges: MARCUS, J., dissents.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 427
Pages: 827–835

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Darryl CLAYTON and Joann Isom.
Nos. 82-KA-0730, 81-KA-1514.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sept. 7, 1982.
On Rehearing Feb. 23, 1983.
Rehearing Denied March 25, 1983.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry P. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, John Craft, Richard Petre and William Campbell, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.
John M. Lawrence, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, O.I.D.P., John J. Dolan, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion:
CARTER, Justice Ad Hoc.
The defendants, Darryl Clayton and Joann Isom, were charged by grand jury indictment with second degree murder of Sharon Heim, in violation of R.S. 14:30.1. They were tried by a twelve member jury on March 26, 1981, and found guilty as charged. The verdict against Clayton was unanimous; the verdict against Isom was divided, ten to two. Thereafter, both defendants filed motions for new trials, alleging inter alia the existence of new evidence. The first motions for new trial were heard on April 13, 1981 and were denied by the trial court. On April 20,1981, both defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. While the appeals were pending, both defendants filed second motions for new trial again alleging the existence of new evidence. We remanded the case and directed an evidentiary hearing be held on the second motions for new trial. The motions were heard on February 24, 1982, and the defendants' motions for new trial were denied.
While this appeal was pending, defendant, Joann Isom died. Thus, the proceeding against her is abated. State v. Hamilton, 370 So.2d 874 (La.1979); State v. Ferina, 351 So.2d 1200 (La.1977); State v. Morris, 328 So.2d 65 (La.1976).
With respect to defendant Clayton, defendant specified five assignments of error before the trial court, but has withdrawn or abandoned assignments of error no. 1 and no. 4, leaving three remaining assignments of error as follows:
(1) That the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence State exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 (photographs of a door showing an alleged bullet hole.)
(2) That the trial court erred in refusing to allow defense counsel to question defendant Isom regarding a prior altercation between Isom and Lewis Johnson;
(3) That the trial court erred in denying his motions for new trial.
We find that the third assignment of error has merit.
On the trial of the merits, Keith Draughn, the brother of the deceased victim, testified that on the evening of December 23, 1980, he heard Joann Isom and Lewis Johnson argue. Joann left and came back with Darryl Clayton. Draughn stated that Lewis Johnson was standing with a bat in his hand, but did not attempt to hit anyone. Darryl Clayton asked Johnson something which Draughn could not hear, Clayton then pulled out a gun and shot Johnson in the shoulder.
Draughn further testified that Sharon Heim, who lived with Johnson, came running out of the door to her apartment. She was running toward Johnson when Joann Isom said to Clayton, "shoot that bitch, Sharon for me." Clayton then turned around and shot Sharon as she was coming down the stairs. According to Draughn, Sharon was unarmed. Draughn stated that Clayton fired a third shot at him and his little niece; the shot missed and hit the door to one of the apartments.
Henrine Brown, a friend of Sharon Heim's sister, testified that she heard Lewis Johnson and Joann Isom arguing about money. Johnson told Isom to pay him $60.00, and Isom responded that she did not owe him $60.00. Isom then left and returned with Darryl Clayton. Henrine Brown's testimony on the trial was the same as Keith Draughn's, with one exception: Henrine Brown stated that Lewis Johnson "raised back with the bat" and "was getting ready to hit Darryl Clayton with the bat," when Clayton fired the first shot. She also claimed that she heard Joann Isom tell Clayton to "shoot that 'B' too," and that Sharon Heim was unarmed. Henrine Brown stated that she ran into Sharon's apartment after the shooting. Sharon ran back inside after being shot and collapsed on the floor. On the trial, Hen-rine Brown testified that she saw no gun or knife near Sharon's body.
Defense witness Ida Mae Smith, Joann Isom's aunt, said that she received a telephone call from Henrine Brown on the night of the shooting. Ms. Brown mistook Ida Mae Smith for Sheila Heim, Sharon Heim's sister and a friend of Ms. Brown's, and said "Sheila, get to the hospital as fast as you can. Sharon done got shot. Don't worry because I have the money, the sets, and the knife. You just get to the hospital." Ida Mae Smith then informed Hen-rine Brown that she was not Sheila, to which Henrine Brown replied, "Oh, I made a mistake." Darryl Clayton and Joann Isom both testified that Johnson tried to strike Clayton with the bat before Clayton shot him. Also, both defendants claimed that Sharon Heim was running toward Clayton with a knife when Clayton fired the shot at her and that Clayton fired only two shots and did not fire at Keith Draughn. Sharon Heim died several hours after the shooting of a gunshot wound to the chest.
At the first hearing on defendant's first application for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, defendant produced Freddie Johnson (unrelated to Lewis Johnson) who testified that he witnessed the incident from about a block away. Freddie Johnson testified that he saw one fellow swing a bat and then heard a shot. He then saw "a lady running out of the door screaming with both her hands in the air and she had some kind of object in her hand . she started toward the other guy and at that time I heard another scream, then another shot." Defendant Clayton contends that Freddie Johnson was the only unbiased independent witness to the shooting and that consequently his testimony would probably have changed the verdict from guilty.
On the second evidentiary hearing to determine whether or not the defendant should be granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, Henrine Brown changed her testimony completely. At this hearing, Henrine Brown recanted her previous trial testimony with reference to the actions of Sharon Heim at the time of the shooting. Henrine Brown testified that "Sharon Heim had a knife in her hand at the time of the murder." An almost identi cal assertion had been made in a letter to defendant Darryl Clayton, which letter was introduced at the hearing along with an envelope showing a postmark of December 7, 1981. This testimony of Henrine Brown at the evidentiary hearing was in direct contradiction to her testimony given before the grand jury and at the trial on the merits. At the trial on the merits, Henrine Brown was specifically asked, "Did Sharon have a knife in her hand?", to which she replied, "No". Apparently this was the same testimony that she had given before the grand jury. Henrine Brown claimed that the reason for her failure to bring forth the information regarding the presence of the knife was because of verbal threats that had been made against her by the victim's family prior to the trial. The trial court noted that this change in the witness's testimony was almost a year after the incident and that Henrine Brown had been incarcerated at the same prison facility with the defendant since August 25, 1981.
At trial, the defense of Clayton was primarily based upon justifiable homicide by self defense, alleging that Clayton shot the victim because she ran at him armed with a knife in her hand. The testimony from Henrine Brown bears directly on the issue of self-defense and is corroborated by the testimony of Freddie Johnson who testified in the first hearing on the motion for new trial. This testimony is further corroborated by a defense witness who did testify at the trial, namely Ida Mae Smith, Joann Isom's aunt. Ida Mae Smith had testified on the trial that Henrine Brown had called her and told her not to worry because she had "the money, the sets, and the knife."
La.Code Criminal Procedure art. 851(3) dictates that the court, on motion of defendant, shall grant a new trial whenever:
"(3) New and material evidence that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before or during the trial, is available and if the evidence had been introduced at the trial, it would probably have changed the verdict or judgment of guilty."
This court has consistently held that the trial judge is accorded considerable discretion in evaluating the impact of newly discovered evidence on the verdict and its reliability, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
In considering a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the test to be employed is not whether another jury might bring in a different verdict, but whether the new evidence is so material that it ought to produce a different result than the verdict reached. State v. Naas, 409 So.2d 535 (La.1981), on rehearing, 409 So.2d 542; State v. Williams, 362 So.2d 530 (La.1978); State v. Lovett, 359 So.2d 163 (La.1978); State v. Tyler, 342 So.2d 574 (La.1977); State v. Provost, 352 So.2d 661 (La.1977); State v. Linkletter, 345 So.2d 452 (La.1977).
This court has further consistently held that recantations of trial testimony should be looked upon with the utmost suspicion. State v. Linkletter, supra; State v. Tyler, supra. Further, a recantation at a new trial is a confession to perjury which destroys the credibility of the witness. State v. Linkletter, supra.
Review of the newly discovered evidence relied on by the defense in both the original evidentiary hearing and the second eviden-tiary hearing, convinces the court that the evidence adduced at either of the hearings, if considered alone, would not have entitled the defendant to a new trial. Henrine Brown's testimony on the second new trial hearing would be looked upon with the utmost suspicion and a new trial should not be granted on the grounds that the newly discovered evidence destroys the credibility of the state's witness. State v. Tyler, supra; cf. State v. Brandle, 187 La. 945,175 So. 628 (1937); State v. Bates, 140 La. 833, 74 So. 165 (1917), overruled on other grounds.
Additionally, the testimony of Freddie Johnson, adduced on the original application for new trial, if taken alone, would not be such testimony that would probably have changed the jury's verdict. However, con- sidermg all of the testimony adduced at all evidentiary hearings on motions for new trial, we cannot say that the evidence was not of such materiality that it would not have probably produced a different result than the verdict reached. The testimony of Freddie Johnson, which corroborated Hen-rine Brown's recanted version, when considered with the testimony of Joann Isom and Ida Mae Smith, who testified on behalf of the defense (on the trial), was such evidence that would have cast serious doubt upon the credibility of Keith Draughn, the state's remaining primary witness. The totality of this new evidence would probably have changed the verdict or judgment of guilty. C.Cr.P. art. 851(3). We therefore conclude that the trial judge erred in denying defendant Clayton's motion for new trial. Having thus concluded, it is unnecessary to consider defendant's other assignments of error.
Accordingly, as to defendant Joann Isom, the appeal is dismissed, the judgment of conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the indictment.
As to defendant Clayton, for the above reasons, we hold that the trial court should have granted defendant's second motion for a new trial and accordingly the conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for new trial.
AS TO DEFENDANT ISOM, CONVICTION VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS INDICTMENT.
AS TO DEFENDANT CLAYTON, REVERSED; REMANDED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
MARCUS, J., dissents.
Judges Melvin A. Shortess, Burrell J. Carter and Felix H. Savoie, Jr. of the First Circuit Court of Appeal participated in this decision as Associate Justices Ad Hoc, joined by Chief Justice Dixón and Associate Justices Calogero, Marcus and Dennis.