Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Freddie CANN
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1980-12-15
Citations: 392 So. 2d 381
Docket Number: No. 66349
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Freddie CANN.
Judges: DENNIS, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 392
Pages: 381–389

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Freddie CANN.
No. 66349.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Dec. 15, 1980.
Concurring Opinion Jan. 16, 1981.
Thomas W. Davenport, Jr., Monroe, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Carl Parker-son, Dist. Atty., Martha E. Minnieweather, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
LEMMON, Justice.
This is an appeal from a conviction of possession of cocaine. Finding prejudicial error in the prosecution's introduction of evidence of other crimes, we reverse the conviction.
In executing a warrant for the search of a trailer occupied by defendant and his brother, law enforcement officers discovered marijuana in the trailer and a small amount of cocaine in the refrigerator. Both brothers were charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine. Pursuant to a plea bargain defendant and his brother pleaded guilty to first offense possession of marijuana, and the prosecution dismissed all other charges (including a prior unrelated marijuana and cocaine charge against defendant), except the present charge for possession of cocaine.
At trial an officer testified on direct examination that defendant stated he believed the white powder in the refrigerator was sugar and did not know it was cocaine. With the issue of guilty knowledge thus framed, the prosecutor sought to introduce documentary evidence of defendant's prior guilty plea to possession of marijuana. The prosecution contended this evidence was admissible either as evidence of guilty knowledge under R.S. 15:445-446 or as evidence seized as part of res gestae under R.S. 15:447. Over defense counsel's objection the judge admitted the bill of information charging defendant with possession with intent to distribute and the minutes of the guilty plea to the reduced charge of simple possession. No attempt was made to introduce the marijuana seized at the time of the seizure of the cocaine.
Evidence of other crimes is generally inadmissible because of its tendency to portray defendant as a "bad character". State v. Moore, 278 So.2d 781 (La.1972); State v. Gaines, 340 So.2d 1294 (La.1976); State v. Frentz, 354 So.2d 1007 (La.1978). Nevertheless, R.S. 15:446 authorizes the admission of evidence of extraneous crimes, when knowledge forms an essential part of the inquiry, for the purpose of showing guilty knowledge.
While knowledge is an essential element of the crime of possession of a controlled dangerous substance, evidence of other crimes for the purpose of showing guilty knowledge is not automatically admissible in all possession cases. The probative value of the evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect on the jury. State v. Frederick, 340 So.2d 1353 (La.1976). One of the factors to be considered in weighing the probative value of evidence of extraneous crimes against its prejudicial effect is whether knowledge is truly a contested issue under the facts of the particular case. See State v. Williams, 352 So.2d 1295 (La.1977).
In the present case cocaine was discovered in the refrigerator of a trailer occupied by defendant and his brother. Two women were also at the trailer when the search was conducted. Under these circumstances defendant's guilty knowledge (that the white powder was cocaine) arguably was a truly contested issue, so that evidence of possession of other drugs could have significant probative value as to the issue of knowledge.
The prosecution, however, did not introduce either the other dangerous substances found in the search or testimony as to their discovery. Rather, the prosecution introduced the bill of information charging defendant with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and the minutes of the guilty plea to the reduced charge. The bill of information charging the more serious crime contained the prejudicial and inadmissible opinion of the district attorney as to defendant's knowledge and intent. The minute entry of the guilty plea to the reduced charge constituted evidence of judicial approval of a plea bargain (that could have been based on numerous unrevealed considerations), rather than merely a factual admission that defendant knowingly possessed marijuana. Even more significantly, the document may well have created the impression that defendant was guilty of charges that were dismissed and had "gotten off lightly".
When all of these facts and circumstances áre considered, the admission of evidence relating to defendant's being charged with other crimes was improper and highly prejudicial. While proper evidence of the discovery of marijuana in the search arguably had probative value on the issue of guilty knowledge that outweighed its prejudicial effect, evidence raising an implication of a plea bargain with the prosecution clearly did not. See State v. Gaspard, 301 So.2d 344 (La.1974).
Finally, evidence that defendant was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute was not admissible as part of the res gestae. The bill of information and the minute entry of the guilty plea to the reduced charge were so far removed in time and place from the seizure that they cannot reasonably be so classified.
For these reasons the conviction and sentence are reversed, and the matter is remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DENNIS, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
. Because of our disposition of the case it is not necessary to determine whether this was the proper way to frame the issue.
. For example, if a person is charged with possession after a legal search of his person reveals narcotics taped to his navel, the prosecution could not seriously contend that knowledge is such a disputed issue that evidence of other crimes has any necessary or probative value on the issue.
. There was different luggage and men's clothing in each of the two bedrooms, indicating that defendant and his brother both lived there. The absence of women's clothing indicated the two women were visitors.
. Guilty pleas are generally admissible as admissions of the elements of the offense to which the plea is entered. See Davis v. Bankston, 192 So.2d 614 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1966); Pugh, Louisiana Evidence Law, p. 443 (1974).
. The guilty plea, viewed by the jury as a confession, obviously was more devastating than mere evidence that marijuana was found on premises occupied by defendant.
. Again, the marijuana itself or testimony as to its discovery might have been admissible as part of the res gestae.