State of Louisiana v. James T.K." Alexander "

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: September 10, 2003
• Docket: KA-0003-0167
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

03-0167

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JAMES "T. K." ALEXANDER

**********

APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 00507 HONORABLE GERARD B. WATTIGNY, DISTRICT JUDGE

JOHN D. SAUNDERS JUDGE

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, John D. Saunders, and Billy Howard Ezell, Judges.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; AND CASE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

Hon. J. Phillip Haney District Attorney 300 Iberia Street, Suite 200 New Iberia, LA 70560 (337) 369-4420 Counsel for: Plaintiff/Appellee State of Louisiana

Paula Corley Marx Louisiana Appellate Project P. O. Box 80006 Lafayette, LA 70598-0006 (337) 991-9757 Counsel for: Defendant/Appellant James "T.K." Alexander SAUNDERS, J.,

The Defendant, James “T.K.” Alexander, was charged by bill of information

on September 25, 2001, with public bribery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:118. The

Defendant entered a plea of not guilty on October 3, 2001. Trial by jury commenced

on May 14, 2002. On May 17, 2002, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of public

bribery. On October 10, 2002, the Defendant was sentenced to three years at hard

labor, all but one year suspended, with credit for time served, and three years

supervised probation. A Motion to Reconsider Sentence was filed on October 15,

2002, and denied on October 16, 2002. A Motion for Appeal was filed on October 22,

2002.

FACTS:

Louis Hutchinson conducted a presentation at a Jeanerette City Council meeting

in April of 1999 regarding his employer, PSG, taking over the operations of the city

water plant. Whitney Vernon testified that after the council meeting, he was

approached by Michael Cormier, the City’s financial advisor. Cormier advised

Vernon that Hutchinson would like to speak to Vernon and that Hutchinson would

like to offer Vernon a job in exchange for a favorable vote on the water plant contract.

The Defendant, the Mayor of Jeanerette, advised Vernon that Hutchinson wanted to

meet with Vernon at Vernon’s place of employment to discuss the contract. Vernon

then contacted the Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Department on April 26, 1999. Vernon met

with Hutchinson and another employee of PSG, Monty Boynton, at Vernon’s place

of employment on April 29, 1999. The meeting was arranged by the Defendant.

During the meeting, Hutchinson offered Vernon a job at the water plant in exchange

for a favorable vote on the contract. Vernon called the Defendant after the meeting

with Hutchinson, advising the Defendant that he was concerned because Hutchinson had brought Boynton to the meeting. The Defendant told Vernon if Hutchinson said

he would get a job it was true. The Defendant then arranged for Hutchinson to contact

Vernon. Hutchinson called Vernon on May 4, 1999, and from that conversation

Vernon got the impression he would get a job at the water plant if he voted in favor

of the PSG contract. On May 6, 1999, Vernon had a conversation with the Defendant

wherein the Defendant indicated Hutchinson would go through with his deal with

Vernon and that Hutchinson was going to get jobs for other people, including the

Defendant. The Defendant then scheduled a meeting with Vernon for that evening,

but the Defendant canceled the meeting. The Defendant met Vernon the following

day at Vernon’s place of employment, at which time the Defendant informed Vernon

he was taking the contract proposal off the agenda.

Kevin Duffy, vice president for compliance and assistant general counsel for

U.S. Filter, formerly Aqua Alliance, Inc., the parent company of PSG, conducted an

investigation into an alleged bribery in Jeanerette. The investigation was prompted

by Monte Boynton reporting Hutchinson’s meeting with Vernon to the company’s

compliance hotline. Based on the investigation, Hutchinson was suspended. On May

7, 1999, Bill Nelson, general counsel for PSG, called and faxed the Defendant

informing the Defendant there was an ongoing investigation regarding a PSG

employee and it was suggested that the vote on the PSG contract be postponed. Once

the investigation was completed, Hutchinson was fired and the PSG contract was

withdrawn.

ERRORS PATENT:

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors

patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find two errors patent,

both concerning the Defendant’s sentence.

2 As a condition of probation, the Defendant was ordered to pay a monthly

supervision fee and to make restitution to the city of Jeanerette for the expenses

incurred as a result of the crime, in an amount to be determined by the Defendant and

his probation officer. The judge stated he would hold a hearing and determine the

amount of restitution only if the Defendant and his probation officer did not agree on

the amount to be paid.

The first error patent concerns the failure of the trial judge to establish the

amount of restitution to be paid by the Defendant. This resulted in an illegal sentence.

In State v. Dauzat, 590 So.2d 768, 775 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1991), writ denied, 598 So.2d

355 (La.1992), this court stated:

When a sentencing judge orders a defendant to make restitution to the victim, both La.C.Cr.P. arts. 895(A)(7) and 895.1 require the court, and not the probation officer, to determine the amount of restitution. Because the court failed to determine the amount of restitution owed as a special condition of probation, the defendant's sentence is illegal. State v. Hardy, 432 So.2d 865 (La.1983). State v. Rogers, 517 So.2d 428 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987).

This error cannot be corrected by an appellate court. Therefore, defendant’s sentence must be reversed with the case to be remanded for resentencing. Upon resentencing, the judge must determine the amount of money taken by the defendant which was not covered by insurance. Restitution for this loss may be ordered pursuant to either La.C.Cr.P. arts. 895 or 895.1.

Therefore, the Defendant’s sentence is vacated and the case remanded for

resentencing.

The second error patent concerns the sentencing judge’s failure to set the

amount of the monthly probation supervision fee. See State v. Pounds, 581 So.2d 319

(La.App. 1 Cir. 1991). In State v. Hardy, 432 So.2d 865 (La.1983), the supreme court

remanded the case with instructions to modify the condition of probation to specify

the amount of the supervision fee within the range allowed under La.Code Crim.P. art.

3 895.1.

Since the sentence is vacated for the failure to set the amount of restitution, we

direct the lower court to set the amount of the probation supervision fee at the

resentencing proceeding if the Defendant is once again placed on probation.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1:

The Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting the taped statement

of Louis Hutchinson, III, in violation of the Defendant’s constitutional right of

confrontation.

At the Defendant’s trial, Louis Hutchinson asserted his Fifth Amendment

privilege against self-incrimination and exercised his right not to testify. The State

then moved to introduce a taped statement by Hutchinson made on September 13,

2001. Defense counsel objected to the introduction of the taped statement, asserting:

the Defendant was being denied the right to confront and cross-examine Hutchinson,

there were breaks in the tape when it was played, the tape could not be admitted unless

its author was called as a witness, the tape was not provided prior to trial, the

statement of a witness could not be introduced, and it was not a statement against

Hutchinson’s interest. However, the judge ruled Mr. Hutchinson, having asserted his

Fifth Amendment right, was unavailable as a witness pursuant to La.Code Evid. art.

804; therefore, his statement was admissible. The trial court made the following

remarks when ruling on the admissibility of the taped statement:

In the statement, Mr. Hutchinson incriminates himself in additional crimes. He incriminates himself in the crime of bribing Mr. Cormier with money and possibly a job. He incriminates himself in a conspiracy with Mr. Cormier and Mr. Alexander in - to bribe Mr. Vernon. So that, in this situation, particularly with reference to his statements regarding Cormier, he is subjecting himself to additional criminal charges. In addition to that, of course, he is incriminating himself for the possibility of civil action against him as well as in expanding the course and scope of the conspiracy and the course - and additional incrimination

4 concerning Mr. Cormier. So that lends some reliability to his statement.

And of course, as to Mr. Cormier, it involves two different bribery attempts, that he gave him money at two different times. And what makes him more reliable also is the fact that he gave a personal check and that there would be written evidence of the commission of that crime which he presented - which he told the police about, so that that would give the police physical evidence as well as his incriminating statement to use against him to prosecute him for that offense.

Now, what is the reliability of his statements which tend to involve Mr. Alexander? Well, we have already heard in this case on Mr. Alexander’s recorded statement that Mr. Alexander . . . stated that he was aware and was sure that Mr. Hutchinson was going to give Mr. Vernon the job in exchange for the vote. . . . So that further verifies the credibility and the reliability of the statement of Mr. Hutchinson.

In addition to that, Mr. Boynton’s testimony at the trial also lends credence to the statements of Mr. Hutchinson.

....

And then, of course, further giving credibility to the reliability of the statement has been the testimony of Mr. Vernon that Mr. Alexander set up the meetings with Mr. Hutchinson.

So the statement has inherent reliability.

And the statement of course is a self-inculpatory statement of Mr. Hutchinson. And this court finds, after a fact-intensive inquiry, that the statement is truly a statement of inculpation of Mr. Hutchinson and also of the others involved in the alleged bribery.

The Defendant contends the statements of Louis Hutchinson were not subjected

to cross-examination, he made contrary assertions, the interview was given after

Hutchinson’s conviction but prior to sentencing, the jury was not permitted to observe

Hutchinson’s demeanor at the time he made the statement, and the statement was not

credible. Defendant also contends the trial court committed reversible error in

allowing the jury to hear Hutchinson’s statement because the application of La.Code

Evid. art. 804's “unavailable” provision is inapplicable where the constitutional rights

5 to confrontation and cross-examination are implicated. The Defendant further

contends the broad exception applied by the trial court is unconstitutional inasmuch

as it is not sufficient that a witness be unavailable since there are Due Process

concerns that must be addressed.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” This right provides “‘two types of protections for a criminal defendant: the right physically to face those who testify against him, and the right to conduct cross-examination.’”

State v. Welch, 99-1283, p. 4 (La. 4/11/00); 760 So.2d 317, 320 (citation omitted).

However, as the fourth circuit noted in State v. Brown, 97-2260, p. 11 (La.App.

4 Cir. 10/6/99); 746 So.2d 643, 649-50:

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that although the literal language of the Confrontation Clause provides for face-to-face accusation at trial, this provision does not represent an absolute bar to the use of hearsay testimony. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 63, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). The Court has specified instead that if an out-of-court declarant is unavailable to testify,

[H]is statement is admissible only if it bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

Id. at 66, 100 S.Ct. at 2539 (footnote omitted).

See also State v. Marston, 2000-0589 (La. 3/16/01); 780 So.2d 1058.

Thus, before the court can determine if the admission of Louis Hutchinson’s

statement violated the Defendant’s right to confrontation, we must determine whether

Hutchinson’s statement was admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule.

“‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying

at the present trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter

6 asserted.” La.Code Evid. art. 801(C). Hearsay is not admissible except as provided

for by law. La.Code Evid. art. 802. If a declarant is unavailable as a witness, a

statement made by the declarant that is against the declarant’s interest is not excluded

by the hearsay rule. La.Code Evid. art. 804(B)(3). Accordingly, there is a two prong

test that must be satisfied before a declarant’s statement is admissible as a statement

against interest under La.Code Evid. art. 804 (B)(3):

1) the declarant must be unavailable as a witness; and

2) the statement must be a statement against the declarant’s interest.

AVAILABILITY

A declarant is deemed unavailable under La.Code Evid. art. 804(A)(1) by a

finding of the trial court that the declarant has invoked a privilege and is consequently

exempt from testifying. Hutchinson asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against

self-incrimination and refused to testify at trial. Accordingly, he was unavailable.

State v. Dotch, 298 So.2d 742, 745 (La.1974); cert. denied, 420 U.S. 976, 95 S.Ct.

1401 (1975); See also State v. Bright, 98-0398 (La. 4/11/00); 776 So.2d 1134.

STATEMENT AGAINST INTEREST

The Defendant asserts that the taped statement does not meet the requirements

of La.Code Evid. art. 804(B)(3). Defendant contends the taped statement is not a

“statement,” as Article 804 (B)(3) does not refer to an extended declaration but instead

refers to a single remark.

A statement is “[a]n oral or written assertion.” La.Code Evid. art. 801(A)(1).

However, in Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599, 114 S.Ct. 2431, 2434-35

(1994), the supreme court concluded that the term “statement” in Federal Rule of

Evidence 801 meant a “single declaration or remark” and would “cover only those

declarations or remarks within the confession that are individually self-inculpatory.”

7 The taped statement of Louis Hutchinson, III was played to the jury during the

testimony of Detective David Landry. The statement was not transcribed as part of

the trial transcript. The notation at the time the tape was played at trial reads as

follows: “(At this time, State’s exhibit Number 22, the tape-recorded interview of

Louis Hutchinson dated 9-13-01, was played to the jury.)” After the tape was played,

Detective Landry testified he did not know the length of the taped statement.

Defendant does not inform the court of the length of the tape, but only asserts it is not

a statement because La.Code Evid. 804(B)(3) does not refer to an extended

declaration.

Upon review of the taped statement, we note that it consists of an interview of

Louis Hutchinson, III that is approximately forty minutes in length. Under La.Code

Evid. art. 801, only those statements on the tape that are self-inculpatory can be

considered statements. Defendant has pointed to no portion of the tape or to any

particular remarks that are not self-inculpatory, and trial counsel did not seek to have

any portion of the statement redacted.

Defendant also calls into question whether the statement was actually against

Louis Hutchinson’s interest, because he had already been convicted. Defendant

further questions Hutchinson’s motivation for making the statement.

A statement against interest is:

[a] statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject him to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by him against another, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true.

La.Code Evid. art. 804(B)(3).

Upon review, a large portion of the taped statement is self-inculpatory and the

trial court discussed numerous portions of the statement that were self-inculpatory in

8 its ruling on the admissibility of the statement.

Defense counsel cites Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 106 S.Ct. 2056 (1986),

indicating Hutchinson’s statement is unreliable and calls into question Hutchinson’s

motive for making the statement. In his argument, Defendant relies heavily on the fact

that Hutchinson’s statement was made after his conviction, but before he was

sentenced.

[A] codefendant's confession is presumptively unreliable as to the passages detailing the defendant's conduct or culpability because those passages may well be the product of the codefendant's desire to shift or spread blame, curry favor, avenge himself, or divert attention to another.

Id. at 545, 2064.

At the trial on May 13, 2002, the State asserted that it had made no oral or

written agreement with Louis Hutchinson and had promised him nothing in exchange

for his testimony at the Defendant’s trial. The judge noted he had a discussion with

Hutchinson’s attorney, at which time the attorney requested that the judge take any

cooperation by Hutchinson into consideration at sentencing, specifically, his testifying

at the trial of the Defendant. Assistant District Attorney Vines told the court he was

not present during the meeting and no written or oral agreement between the State and

the Defendant existed.

There is nothing else in the record regarding Hutchinson’s motivation for

making the statement and Defendant has failed to point to any improper motive for

making the statement or to prove that Hutchinson was attempting to curry favor by

making the statement. The trial court determined that Hutchinson’s statement was

“inherently reliable” based on the fact that Hutchinson implicated himself in various

other crimes and because testimony at trial prior to the admission of Hutchinson’s

statement supported the remarks made by Hutchinson in his taped statement. Upon

9 reviewing the taped statement, Hutchinson does implicate himself in various other

crimes. Accordingly, we find Defendant has failed to show Hutchinson’s motivation

for making the statement was improper or that the statement is unreliable.

In light of the above discussion, we cannot say the trial court erred in

determining the statement was reliable and a statement against the declarant’s interest.

We find the taped statement meets the threshold requirements for admissibility under

For the reasons stated above, we find the Defendant’s right to confrontation was

not violated by the admission of the taped statement of Louis Hutchinson, inasmuch

as the trial court determined Hutchinson was unavailable, the statement was a

statement against interest, and the statement was reliable. Defendant has not presented

any specific argument for the unreliability of the taped statement, other than the fact

the statement was made after Hutchinson’s conviction. The Defendant contends that

Hutchinson made contrary assertions, but points out none.

PREJUDICE VERSUS PROBATIVE VALUE

The Defendant further contends the prejudicial effect of the tape outweighed

its probative value. Although we do not find that the tape violates the Defendant’s

right to confront witnesses, if the prejudicial effect of the tape outweighs its probative

value, the tape would be inadmissible under La.Code Evid. art. 403.

The Defendant specifically contends the jury was confused as to the differences

between the charges and requested the judge explain the possible verdicts on two

different occasions. Defendant concludes the jury’s ability to consider the totality of

the evidence fairly was affected by Hutchinson’s statement and the reliability of the

statement was called into question at that time.

The jury sent two notes to the judge during deliberations. The first note read

10 as follows: “We need a description of the three responsive verdicts.” The judge then

read the portion of the instructions to the jury regarding the responsive verdicts of

public bribery, attempted public bribery, and not guilty. The second note read as

follows: “Can we see the definitions in writing so we can review the differences

between the charges?” The attorneys did not agree to allow a copy of the instructions

to be given to the jury. Accordingly, the judge informed the jury that the law did not

permit him to provide the jury a written copy of the instructions. Juror Hoover

responded as follows: “Well, I just don’t think we’re understanding the differences.

I mean, we understand not guilty, but the differences between the first two.” The

judge then read the instructions regarding public bribery and attempted public bribery

again. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of public bribery.

There is no indication in the record as to the cause of the jury’s confusion over

the differences between public bribery and attempted public bribery. The Defendant

has pointed out no reason why the questions regarding the jury instructions brings the

reliability of the statement into question, and presents no specific portion of the

statement as being specifically prejudicial to him.

Louis Hutchinson, III’s statement was properly admitted and the admission did

not violate the Defendant’s right to confrontation. Accordingly, this assignment lacks

merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2:

The Defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to an

excessive sentence which was not sufficiently particularized to the offender or the

offense. More specifically, the Defendant contends the mitigating factors in this case

are numerous and a shorter probated sentence is appropriate in this case. As we have

found the sentence must be set aside due to errors patent, this assignment of error is

11 now rendered moot.

DECREE:

For the reasons stated herein, the Defendant’s conviction is affirmed, however,

his sentence is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; AND CASE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.