Court Opinion

ID: 9388481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 17:05:02.075111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:20.578707
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                 COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE       OF    LOUISIANA                                                                    NO.        2023      KW      0368

VERSUS

KARL    JOHNSON                                                                                APRIL           20,          2023

In    Re:          State           of     Louisiana,              applying         for       supervisory                    writs,

                   19th        Judicial            District             Court,          Parish         of         East       Baton

                   Rouge,          No.     01- 19- 0563.

BEFORE:            WELCH,          PENZATO,           AND    LANIER,         JJ.

        WRIT        GRANTED.             The     district           court      abused          its        discretion               in

finding           the        recordings           of       the      911       calls       to      be       inadmissible,
particularly              as       the    court        did    not      review      the      911      call         recordings
prior        to        its     ruling.             The        admission            of     the        911          calls       into
evidence           does        not        violate          the     Confrontation                  Clause,            and      they
fall        within           the        excited         utterance             exception              to      the         hearsay
rules.        See       State        v.     Lee,       2022- 01314 (           La.        11/ 16/ 22),             349       So. 3d
988,        989- 90 (         per        curiam).             The       911     calls          were         made      by the
victim' s mother immediately after the alleged offenses                                                             occurred.
The victim was present during the   calls and provided her                                                                  mother
information           regarding                the      incident.              The       victim' s            mother          then
relayed          that   information                   to     the       911    operator.                The        calls       were

made        for the primary purpose of reporting the alleged crimes and
to     seek help             for    the     victim,          who       claimed       to    have        been         raped      and
was     injured.              Further,           the       calls        were       related           to       a     startling
event        and       were     made        while          the     declarants           were         still         under       the
stress        of       the     event.            See    La.       Code       Evid.      Arts.          803 (       1) & (      2).
As     set       forth        in    Davis        v.     Washington,             547       U. S.        828,        126       S. Ct.
2266,        165       L. Ed. 2d         224 (    2006),          statements            made       for        the        primary
purpose           of     seeking           help        during          an     ongoing emergency                        are     not

testimonial.                 Therefore,            this       matter         is remanded to the                       district
court for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

                                                                 JEW
                                                                 AHP
                                                                 WIL

COURT       OF    APPEAL,          FIRST       CIRCUIT

                                0.

        DEPUTY          CLERK OF           COURT
                   FOR       THE    COURT