State of Louisiana v. Issa L. Lamizana, Jr. , 263 So. 3d 872 ( 2019 )

Supreme Court of Louisiana
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #005
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 30th day of January, 2019, are as follows:
PER CURIAM:
2017-K-1490 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ISSA L. LAMIZANA, JR. (Parish of Orleans)
The court of appeal reversed defendant’s convictions for
aggravated rape and sentences of life imprisonment because it
found the district court erred in quashing the subpoena of a
Department of Children and Family Services investigator, who was
the first person to interview the victims and their mother, and
in refusing to allow the defense to call this investigator to
testify at trial. We granted the State’s application to examine
the correctness of that ruling. Upon additional review, however,
it became apparent that the record is inadequate to make that
determination. Therefore, we reverse the court of appeal, and
remand to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing
consistent with the views expressed here. After the district
court conducts the evidentiary hearing, defendant can again
appeal his convictions and sentences.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
01/30/19
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2017-K-1490
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
ISSA L. LAMIZANA, JR.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL
FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
PER CURIAM
Defendant was found guilty of the aggravated rapes of his two stepchildren,
La. R.S. 14:42, and the district court sentenced him to two terms of life
imprisonment without parole eligibility. The court of appeal reversed the
convictions and sentences because it found the district court erred in quashing the
subpoena of a Department of Children and Family Services investigator, who was
the first person to interview the victims and their mother, and in refusing to allow
the defense to call this investigator to testify at trial. State v. Lamizana, 16-1017
(La. App. 4 Cir. 5/31/17), 222 So.3d 58. The court of appeal found that, although it
could not “discern whether the testimony of [the investigator] or the records
relating to her interview would undermine the credibility of the victims’ testimony
and, if so, the extent to which the absence of [the investigator’s] testimony or
records relating to her interview contributed to the verdict,” the trial court’s action
nonetheless “undermines our confidence in the verdict.” Lamizana, 16-1017, pp.
7–8, 222 So.3d at 63.
We granted the State’s application to examine the correctness of that ruling.
Upon additional review, however, it became apparent that the record is inadequate
to make that determination. No ruling by the district court judge regarding the
subpoena appears in the record, and the circumstances under which the investigator
appeared but was not permitted to testify are disputed. The investigator’s file also
does not appear in the record. Although the defense made a general statement in
the district court as to what the defense believed her testimony would prove, she
was not called and her testimony was not proffered to the district court. Given
these deficiencies in the record, we are unable to determine whether this witness
was improperly excluded and what affect her exclusion had on the verdicts. See
generally State v. Vaughn, 431 So.2d 358, 371 n.8 (1982) (on reh’g) (“[T]he
appellate court, when reviewing an erroneous ruling that improperly excludes
evidence, must be convinced that the excluded evidence would not have affected
the jury’s determination.”).
During oral argument, the State agreed that the record was inadequate, and
the State proposed in the interest of fairness and economy that the matter be
remanded to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, at which the
investigator can be called to testify and the parties can present additional evidence
pertinent to the district court’s ruling. In light of the State’s reasonable proposal,
we reverse the court of appeal, and remand to the district court to conduct an
evidentiary hearing consistent with the views expressed here. After the district
court conducts the evidentiary hearing, defendant can again appeal his convictions
and sentences.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
2