State of Louisiana v. Quincy McKinnies, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #051
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 15th day of October, 2014, are as follows:
BY CLARK, J.:
2013-K -1412 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. QUINCY MCKINNIES, JR. (Parish of Jefferson)
(Aggravated Assault on a Peace Officer With a Firearm)
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court ruling granting a new
trial is reversed and vacated and the jury’s verdict is
reinstated. This matter is remanded to the trial court for
sentencing of the defendant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
JOHNSON, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
VICTORY, J., concurs.
HUGHES, J., dissents.
10/15/14
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2013-K-1412
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
QUINCY MCKINNIES, JR.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,
FIFTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
CLARK, Justice
After conviction, the defendant moved for a new trial on the basis of newly
discovered evidence. The state challenged the claim presented on both procedural
and substantive grounds. No evidence was submitted at the hearing on the motion.
Nevertheless, the trial court granted the defendant a new trial on the grounds that
the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence and the ends of justice would be
served by ordering a new trial. In a split-panel decision, the court of appeal
affirmed, finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in granting the defendant’s
motion. We disagree. We find the defendant failed to show a valid ground for
new trial and hold that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the
defendant’s motion. The court of appeal erred in affirming the district court’s
decision. For these legal errors, we reverse and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The defendant, Quincy McKinnies, Jr., 1 was charged by bill of information
with aggravated assault on a peace officer with a firearm, a violation of La. R.S.
14:37.2.2 At trial, Officer Ryan Mekdessie of the Gretna Police Department
1
The record contains two different spellings of the defendant’s given name-Quincy and Quincey. The
prosecution and the defense have used both spellings in their briefs and motions throughout the trial and
appellate record. This opinion uses the spelling found in the bill of information and in the court of
appeal’s opinion.
2
La. R.S. 14:37.2(A) provides: “Aggravated assault upon a peace officer with a firearm is an assault
1
testified McKinnies abandoned a car in which he had been fleeing from police and
pointed a handgun at him, as the officer, who had been following McKinnies,
prepared to give chase. After McKinnies ran away, Officer Mekdessie followed,
assisted by his K-9 partner. While other officers set up a perimeter around the area
in hopes of capturing McKinnies, Officer Mekdessie and his dog discovered the
defendant hiding in a dark, vacant lot behind a tree. When McKinnies would not
come out from behind the tree despite repeated requests by the officer to do so,
Officer Mekdessie sent his dog forward on a 15-foot leash. Seeing McKinnies
reach into his waistband and fearing for his life and that of his dog, Officer
Mekdessie shot at McKinnies after several times ordering the defendant to “show
his hands.” McKinnies was shot in the confrontation, suffering a graze wound to
his abdomen and hip. Officer Mekdessie’s dog also sustained a gunshot wound.
The officer’s testimony was partially corroborated by other witnesses.
Detective Ashton Gibbs, also of the Gretna Police Department, observed a
handgun in plain view in the vehicle defendant was driving before the foot chase
with Officer Mekdessie began. Detective Gibbs and Gretna Police Sergeant Tris
Lear, who were standing on the perimeter set up by police, out of sight of the
defendant and Officer Mekdessie, both heard the officer ordering the defendant to
show his hands several times before they heard gunshots.
The defendant testified at trial and admitted he ran from police. But
McKinnies said the police started shooting at him without saying anything. He
testified the police approached him after he was shot, placed him in handcuffs and
started to beat him, knocking out all his teeth on one side of his mouth. McKinnies
committed upon a peace officer who is acting in the course and scope of his duties with a firearm.” A
firearm is defined for these purposes as “an instrument used in the propulsion of shot, shell, or bullets by
the action of gunpowder exploded within it.” La. R.S. 14:37.2(B). The penalty for this crime is a fine of
not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years,
with or without hard labor, or both. La. R.S. 14:13.2(C). An assault is committed when a defendant
intentionally places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery, or an attempt to commit a
battery. La. R.S. 14:36. The intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another constitutes a
battery. La. R.S. 14:33.
2
denied ever pointing a weapon at a police officer, denied having a weapon in the
car and denied having a weapon in his possession that night. He testified he was
never confronted by a K-9 and did not know there was a dog at the scene until he
overheard officers saying he had shot their dog. No weapon was found either in
the car driven by McKinnies or at the scene of his arrest.
After hearing the conflicting evidence, the jury found the defendant guilty as
charged. McKinnies filed a timely written motion for new trial asserting there was
newly discovered evidence which, if considered, would probably have changed the
verdict. The affidavit by defense counsel accompanying the motion for new trial
stated the newly discovered evidence concerned the credibility of Officer
Mekdessie, the victim and only witness to testify that McKinnies pointed a
handgun at him. The newly discovered evidence was described in the affidavit as
three separate incidents of police conduct involving Officer Mekdessie, unrelated
to the charge against McKinnies, which were allegedly being investigated by the
City of Gretna’s Internal Affairs and/or the FBI. The affidavit listed Officer
Mekdessie and the defendant as witnesses who would testify about the allegations.
The state filed a written response to the motion for new trial, raising several
procedural objections and arguing the defense failed to satisfy the statutory
requirements for a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The
state also addressed the merits of the claim, arguing that allegations of extrinsic
matters which might be used as impeachment evidence were not adequate bases for
a new trial under the jurisprudence.
At the hearing on the motion for new trial, the defense presented no
evidence to support the allegations and failed to call any witnesses to testify.
Instead, defense counsel argued the three incidents should have been disclosed to
the defendant under the state’s obligation to disclose evidence favorable to the
defense and concerning the credibility of government witnesses. The prosecutor
3
argued that there was nothing for the state to disclose to the defense, as there were
no charges filed or discipline imposed against Officer Mekdessie in connection
with the allegations. The state stressed that the allegations stemmed from defense
counsel’s conversations with another criminal defense attorney and were
groundless.
After taking the matter under advisement, the trial judge ruled in open court:
“Even though they may not be entitled to it under the grounds that were set forth in
the defendant’s motion, I do believe that in the interest of justice we’re going to go
ahead and grant a new trial. And that’s under Article 851, Section 5.” The trial
judge issued a written judgment similarly showing the ground upon which the new
trial was granted: to serve “the ends of justice… although the defendant may not
be entitled to a new trial as a matter of strict legal right.”
The state thereafter filed a timely writ application, seeking review of the trial
court’s ruling. The appellate court ordered the trial judge to submit a per curiam
outlining the reasons why he granted the motion for new trial pursuant to La.
C.Cr.P. art. 851(5). In response, the trial judge issued a per curiam which stated:
The court after hearing the testimony of witnesses, watching
their demeanor while testifying, and considering the evidence
presented by all parties, has reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
defendant.
Therefore, the court believes that the ends of justice would best
be served by granting defendant, Quincy McKinnies, a new trial.
After the court of appeal’s review of the per curiam, the appellate court
granted the state’s writ for the limited purpose of instructing the trial court to
consider the state’s notice of intent to seek writs as a motion for appeal. Pursuant
to the appellate court’s order, the trial court granted the state’s motion for appeal.
Subsequent to the filing of the state’s appeal, McKinnies filed a motion to
remand the case to the trial court so that he could amend his original motion for
new trial to include additional newly disclosed information. The court of appeal
4
granted the motion to remand. A hearing was held in the trial court wherein
McKinnies moved to amend his original motion for a new trial “by adding a
witness.” The trial court denied the motion to amend and the case returned to the
court of appeal.
In a 2-1 decision, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling which
granted McKinnies a new trial.3 The court of appeal found the trial court complied
with all of the necessary procedural and substantive requirements for a new trial;
specifically, the defendant’s written motion was timely filed before sentencing, the
motion raised one of the specified grounds for new trial, and a contradictory
hearing was held. The appellate court noted La. C.Cr.P. art. 851 provides the
exclusive list of possible grounds for a new trial, and the trial court’s stated reasons
for granting the new trial were found on that list, although they were not the same
as the ground which the defendant raised or argued.
The appellate court found the court’s oral and written judgment granted the
new trial under La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(5), and the per curiam “expanded its ruling” to
include La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(1). The court of appeal held it to be within the trial
judge’s discretion to consider an additional ground for granting the new trial
motion. The court of appeal then evaluated the trial court’s ruling as a motion for
new trial granted under La. C.Cr.P. arts. 851(1) and 851(5).
Insofar as the trial court granted a new trial under La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(1)—
that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence—the court of appeal held the
ruling was essentially unreviewable. The appellate court found the trial court’s
decision on the weight of the evidence was a question of fact not subject to
appellate review under either La. Const. art. V, § 10(B) or La. C.Cr.P. art. 858.4
3
State v. McKinnies, 2012-0335 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13); 119 So.3d 147.
4
La. Const. art. V, § 10(B) provides the scope of review of appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case
extends only to questions of law. La. C.Cr.P. art. 858 states: “Neither the appellate nor supervisory
jurisdiction of the supreme court may be invoked to review the granting or the refusal to grant a new trial,
except for error of law.”
5
Insofar as the trial court’s new trial ruling relied upon La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(5)—that
the ends of justice would be served by ordering a new trial—the appellate court
reviewed the decision for an abuse of discretion. Finding the trial court
substantiated its concerns and that this specification supported the grant of a new
trial, the appellate court found no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in granting a
new trial on that basis.
With regard to the only ground for new trial actually raised by the
defendant’s motion—that of newly discovered evidence—the court of appeal
stated:
Accordingly, we find that the merits of defendant’s “newly discovered
evidence” which concern Officer Mekdessie’s “credibility,” need not
be addressed because such evidence did not form the basis of the trial
court’s granting of a new trial. Defendant complied with the
requirements of La. C.Cr.P. art. 856 to list the grounds then “known
and available” to him; he could not have been expected to know of the
trial judge’s then-unexpressed reasons he would ultimately assign to
his ruling on defendant’s motion.5
Finding the issue to be res nova in Louisiana, the dissenting judge looked to
federal law before concluding the trial court was without authority to grant a new
trial in the interest of justice on any basis other than the one raised by the
defendant. Relying on our decision in State v. Guillory,6 the dissenting judge also
found the trial court failed to adequately articulate its concerns, or to specify any
evidence or testimony which gave rise to its doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.
We granted the state’s writ to review the lower courts’ decisions.7
LAW AND DISCUSSION
In his motion for new trial, the defendant asserted that allegations of possible
police misconduct committed by Officer Mekdessie in other cases cast doubt upon
5
McKinnies, 2012-0335, p. 16; 119 So.2d at 156.
6
2010-1231 (La. 10/8/10); 45 So.3d 612.
7
State v. McKinnies, 2013-1412 (La. 4/25/14); 138 So.3d 633.
6
the officer’s credibility in this case and entitled him to a new trial. The rules
governing a motion for new trial in a criminal case are found in La. C.Cr.P. arts.
851-858. Insofar as our review will require us to interpret the rules governing new
trial motions, we will be guided by the following principles of statutory
interpretation.
The interpretation of the statutory law presents us with a question of law
which is reviewed under a de novo standard of review.8 We look first to the
language of the articles themselves to determine their meaning.9 When the law is
clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences,
its language must be given effect, and its provisions must be construed so as to
give effect to the purpose indicated by a fair interpretation of the language used.10
Our inquiry must consider each article regarding new trial motions in its entirety,
as well as the other articles on this subject, placing a construction on the whole that
is consistent with the express terms of the articles and the obvious intent of the
legislature in enacting these rules.11 The history of the statute or article in
question, and any related legislation, is often a helpful guide in ascertaining the
intent of the legislature.12
Grounds for seeking a new trial are set forth in La. C.Cr.P. art. 851,which
provides in pertinent part:
. . . The court, on motion of the defendant, shall grant a new trial
whenever:
(1) The verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence;
(2) The court’s ruling on a written motion, or an objection made
during the proceedings, shows prejudicial error;
8
City of Bossier City v. Vernon, 2012-0078, p. 3 (La. 10/16/12); 100 So.3d 301, 303.
9
State v. Clark, 2012-1296, p. 6 (La. 5/7/13); 117 So.3d 1246, 1250.
10
State v. Oliphant, 2012-1176, p. 5 (La. 3/19/13); 113 So.3d 165, 168; La. R.S. 1:4.
11
Clark, 2012-1296, p. 7; 117 So.3d at 1251.
12
State v. Skipper, 2004-2137, p. 5 (La. 6/29/05); 906 So.2d 399, 404.
7
(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;
(4) The defendant has discovered, since the verdict or judgment of
guilty, a prejudicial error or defect in the proceedings that,
notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the
defendant, was not discovered before the verdict or judgment; or
(5) The court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served
by the granting of a new trial, although the defendant may not be
entitled to a new trial as a matter of strict legal right.13
La. C.Cr.P. article 851 also states the new trial motion is based on the supposition
that an injustice has been done to the defendant. A defendant has the burden to
show an injustice was done to him, or the motion will be denied, no matter what
allegations are raised.14
A motion for new trial alleging newly discovered evidence requires the
defendant to prove additional allegations of fact, listed in La. C.Cr.P. art. 854:
(1) That notwithstanding the exercise or reasonable diligence by the
defendant, the new evidence was not discovered before or during
the trial;
(2) The names of the witnesses who will testify and a concise
statement of the newly discovered evidence;
(3) The facts which the witnesses or evidence will establish; and
(4) That the witnesses or evidence are not beyond the process of the
court, or are otherwise available.
We have previously held:
Thus, a new trial shall be granted based on Article 851(3) when: (1)
new evidence was discovered after trial; (2) the new evidence is
material; (3) the failure to discover the evidence was not due to a lack
of diligence on the part of the defense; and, (4) had the evidence been
introduced, the verdict or judgment of guilty probably would have
13
The official revision comment-1966(d) to La. C.Cr.P. art. 851 states “[t]he grounds for a new trial
follow Art. 509 of the 1928 Code very closely, thus preserving the benefits of some well-settled lines of
Louisiana jurisprudence.”
14
Id.8
been changed.15
La. C.Cr.P. art. 858 limits our review of the trial court’s ruling on the new
trial motion: “In reviewing the granting or the refusal to grant a new trial, neither
the appellate nor the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be
invoked, except for error of law.” Therefore, we review the trial court’s ruling on
the new trial motion only for legal error. An abuse of the trial court’s discretion in
ruling on a new trial motion on the ground of newly discovered evidence presents a
question of law.16
This court will attach great weight to the exercise of the trial judge’s
discretion.17 “On the other hand, the discretion vested in the trial court must be
exercised in whole-hearted good faith and be guided by the statutes, not by the
court’s private opinion of what the statute ought to be. Where the exercise of
discretion is arbitrary and not judicial, and the judgment is unjust, it will be set
aside.”18 It has been described as “self-evident,” that when “discretion is
inappropriate an incorrect decision is not entitled to deference. For example, a trial
court has no discretion or choice to disregard statutory rules … in deciding a new
trial motion.”19
This court explained the duty of a trial judge considering a new trial motion
based on newly discovered evidence in State v. Talbot:
The scope of the trial judge’s duty toward the motion for a new trial
based upon the new evidence must be kept in mind. It was not for
him to determine the guilt of [another alleged suspect] or the
innocence of [the defendant]; it was not for him to weigh the new
evidence as though he were a jury, determining what is true and what
15
State v. Watts, 2000-0602, p. 6 (La. 1/14/03); 835 So.2d 441, 447, citing also State v. Cavalier, 1996-
3052, 1997-0103, p. 3 (La. 10/31/97); 701 So.2d 949, 951; State v. Hammons, 597 So.2d 990, 994 (La.
1992); State v. Knapper, 555 So.2d 1335, 1339 (La. 1990).
16
State v. Talbot, 408 So.2d 861, 885 (La. 1980) (on rehearing).
17
Id.18
Id.19
Id.9
is false. The judge’s duty was the very narrow one of ascertaining
whether there was new material fit for a new jury’s judgment. If so,
will honest minds, capable of dealing with evidence, probably reach a
different conclusion, because of the new evidence, from that of the
first jury? Do the new facts raise debatable issues? Will another jury,
conscious of its oath and conscientiously obedient to it, probably
reach a verdict contrary to the one that was reached on a record
wholly different from the present, in view of evidence recently
discovered and not adducible by the defense at the time of the original
trial?20
We have found that the trial judge’s duty is an objective test, “in that the trial judge
does not sit as the ultimate arbiter of the resolution of the case once the new
evidence is considered, that is, the trial court does not weigh the evidence.” 21 In
other words, “[t]he role of the trial court is to review the evidence constituting the
State’s case, not to determine the sufficiency of the evidence, but to evaluate the
effect of the newly discovered evidence.”22
By contrast, the trial judge’s duty in evaluating a new trial motion brought
under La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(1) or La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(5) is the opposite. In those
circumstances, the trial court’s duty is to put itself in the position of a juror. We
have held “[i]t is appropriate for the trial court to act as a juror for other grounds
related to a motion for new trial … such as a verdict being contrary to the law and
the evidence or the court being of the opinion that the ends of justice would best be
served by granting a new trial.”23
The newly discovered evidence alleged by McKinnies consists of allegations
which, if true, might impugn the credibility of the victim’s testimony. We have
held “newly discovered evidence affecting only a witness’s credibility ordinarily
will not support a motion for new trial, because new evidence which is merely
cumulative or impeaching is not, according to the often-repeated statements of the
20
Id.21
Watts, 2000-0602, p. 7; 835 So.2d at 447.
22
Id.23
Id., 2000-0602, p. 9; 835 So.2d at 448 n.8.
10
courts, an adequate basis for the grant of a new trial.”24 Yet, a trial judge retains
the discretion to grant a new trial in a situation where a witness’s testimony is
essentially uncorroborated and dispositive of the question of guilt or innocence,
where it appears that had the impeaching evidence been introduced, it is likely the
jury would have reached a different result. We need not decide at this point
whether evidence that Officer Mekdessie may or may not have engaged in police
misconduct in other cases would have devastated his credibility here.25
The record shows there was no newly discovered evidence for the trial judge
to evaluate in light of the state’s evidence at trial. Although the allegations of the
motion for a new trial were sworn to by defense counsel, no proof was offered to
sustain them. The minutes of the contradictory hearing show that, after hearing
argument from counsel for the defendant and the state, the matter was submitted to
the trial judge for disposition. When the allegations of a motion for new trial are
not supported by proof, a trial judge properly overrules the motion.26 Allegations
raised in the motion alone are not sufficient, as a defendant has the burden to show
that an injustice has been done to him.27 “In the absence of any showing before the
trial court that the rights of the accused had been jeopardized, and that the alleged
injustice could be rectified at another trial, the court [would be] warranted in its
refusal to set aside the verdict.”28 We hold the defendant’s allegations were
insufficient to show a valid ground for a new trial under La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(3).
The defendant also failed to make any showing with regard to the additional
24
Cavalier, 1996-3052, p. 3; 701 So.2d at 951, citing Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 9, 77 S.Ct.
1, 5, 1 L.Ed.2d 1, 5 (1956) (internal citations omitted).
25
Id., 1996-3052, p. 3-4; 701 So.2d at 951-952.
26
State v. Bueche, 243 La. 160, 186, 142 So.2d 381, 390 (La. 1962) (an allegation alone “presents
nothing for review by this court.”); State v. Slack, 227 La. 598, 602, 80 So.2d 89, 90 (La. 1955); State v.
Roberson, 159 La. 562, 568, 105 So. 621, 623 (La. 1925).
27
La. C.Cr.P. art. 851 (“The motion for new trial is based on the supposition that injustice has been done
the defendant, and, unless such is shown to have been the case, the motion shall be denied, no matter
upon what allegations it is grounded.”).
28
State v. West, 172 La. 344, 349-50, 134 So. 243, 244 (La. 1931).
11
allegations required for a new trial motion brought under La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(3).
“The burden is on the defendant to show that the new evidence was not
discoverable prior to or during trial and that if the evidence had been introduced at
trial, the new evidence probably would have caused the trier of fact to reach a
different verdict.”29 Our law “is well settled that the proposed newly discovered
evidence must not only be newly discovered but also not discoverable by
reasonable diligence before the verdict for it to justify the granting of a new
trial.”30 There are no allegations in the defendant’s motion, and no evidence was
produced at the hearing to prove, that “notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable
diligence by the defendant, the new evidence was not discovered before or during
the trial.”31 In fact, there is no temporal information whatsoever contained in the
record which would allow us to determine whether these alleged incidents occurred
before or after McKinnies’ trial (or indeed, whether they occurred at all). Where
this has previously occurred, we have found a defendant’s motion “wholly
lacking.” In State v. Saba,32 we noted:
that defendant’s motion for a new trial does not give the date or
specify the exact time when the alleged newly discovered evidence
came to his knowledge or from whom, where and how he received the
information regarding the alleged newly discovered witnesses, and the
character of the testimony they proposed to give in the event he was
successful in obtaining the new trial. The particular circumstances of
the discovery of the alleged new witnesses and additional evidence is
nowhere set out in defendant’s motion.
...
In order to comply with the statutory requirement of due diligence
with respect to alleged newly discovered evidence, it is not sufficient
to merely incorporate the words of the statute in the motion for a trial.
There is something else required than the mere statement that the
accused did not know of the existence of this alleged newly
discovered testimony in time to have it brought forward. It must
affirmatively appear that he could not have ascertained it by
29
State v. Clayton, 427 So.2d 827, 832 (La. 1982) (on rehearing).
30
State v. Quimby, 419 So.2d 951, 960 (La. 1982).
31
La. C.Cr.P. art. 854(1).
32
203 La. 881, 893, 894, 14 So.2d 751, 755 (La. 1943).
12
reasonable diligence.
The particular circumstances of the discovery of the evidence must be
affirmatively shown in order that the court may be in a position to
determine the question of diligence from the facts set forth in the
motion and affidavit of the mover.
Although the motion named the defendant and Officer Mekdessie as the
witnesses who would testify about newly discovered information, the new trial
motion does not contain, as it must, a concise statement of facts about which each
would testify or the facts the defense would establish with their testimony. 33 In
short, the record shows a nearly complete failure on the defendant’s part to
conform to the additional requirements of a motion for new trial under La. C.Cr.P.
art. 851(3). On this basis alone, the motion for new trial should have been denied.
In his per curiam to the court of appeal, the trial judge referred to the
testimony and demeanor of the witnesses and the evidence presented by all parties.
We presume the trial judge was referring to the witnesses and evidence presented
at trial, as there were no witnesses or evidence presented at the contradictory
hearing on the defendant’s motion. The trial judge stated in his per curiam that he
had a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. From this, we are able to
conclude the trial judge clearly, and improperly, based his ruling on his own
weighing of the evidence presented at trial as though he were a juror determining
guilt or innocence. In doing so, the trial judge committed legal error by failing to
restrict his review of the defendant’s motion to the proper evaluation of the new
trial motion based on La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(3). “When ruling on an Article 851(3)
motion, a trial judge’s duty is not to weigh the new evidence as though he were a
jury deciding guilt or innocence or to determine what is true or false in light of the
additional information. In other words, the trial judge is not to assess the newly
33
La. C.Cr.P. art. 854(2) and (3).
13
discovered evidence as though he were a thirteenth juror.”34 Instead, “[t]he
discretion vested in the trial judge in passing on a motion for a new trial based on
the ground of newly discovered evidence in a criminal case is to be exercised in
determining the diligence shown, the truth of the matters stated, and the materiality
and probability of their effect, if they are believed to be true.”35
Our review was further complicated by the fact that the court of appeal erred
in its review of the trial court’s ruling. The court of appeal failed to properly
review the trial court’s ruling as one prompted by a motion for new trial on the
basis of La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(3). Instead, the appellate court reviewed the trial
court’s ruling on the grounds found by the trial court, as though the defendant’s
motion had been filed on the basis of La. C.Cr.P. arts. 851(1) and/or (5). This was
also legal error. Although its review of the case was flawed, the court of appeal
raised an issue we feel compelled to address, that is, whether a trial court has the
authority to grant a motion for new trial on a ground not raised by the defendant.
We believe the court of appeal misinterpreted the rules governing motions for new
trial when it found the trial court was required by the rules governing new trial
motions to grant the defendant’s motion.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 851 clearly states a court may only grant a new trial “on
motion of the defendant.” An earlier version of this article, found in the 1928
Code of Crim. Proc., made this point more explicitly. Former Art. 506 of the 1928
Code of Crim. Proc. spelled out:
A new trial cannot be ordered by the court on its own motion or upon
the application of the State, but may be granted with the consent of the
district attorney, whether the motion of defendant set out a valid
reason for a new trial or not.
In enacting the modern criminal procedure rules, the legislature preserved the
34
Watts, 2000-0602, p. 8-9; 835 So.2d at 448.
35
Saba, 203 La. at 898, 14 So.2d at 757.
14
requirement that the court may only grant a new trial upon the defendant’s
motion.36
Under La. C.Cr.P. art. 852, a defendant is required to specify the ground or
grounds upon which the motion is based.37 The defendant is also required, under
La. C.Cr.P. art. 856, to set forth all of the grounds about which he has knowledge
at the time he files his motion. Former Art. 507, of the 1928 Code of Crim. Proc.,
required the defendant’s proof at the contradictory hearing to conform to the
grounds raised in his motion. The current rules omit that requirement. Instead, La.
C.Cr.P. art. 856 authorizes the court to allow the defendant to supplement his
motion, or even to file an additional motion for new trial, if filed before the court’s
ruling.38
The official revision comment-1966 to La. C.Cr.P. art. 852 provides some
insight into the legislature’s intent in omitting the requirement that a defendant’s
evidence at the contradictory hearing should conform to the ground for new trial
asserted in his motion.39 Under the current legislative scheme, “[a] new trial
should be granted any time the defendant shows a valid ground therefor, even
though he failed to state the ground in his motion.”40 By permitting
supplementation of the motion before the court’s ruling, and by providing trial
courts with discretionary authority to permit the urging of additional grounds, the
legislature ensures that a defendant who might have valid grounds supporting a
36
La. C.Cr.P. art. 851, Official Revision Comment—1966, (c) (“The rule of Arts. 505 and 506 of the
1928 Code, that the defendant alone is entitled to make a motion for a new trial, is retained in [Art. 851.]”
37
La. C.Cr.P. art. 852 provides: “A motion for new trial shall be in writing, shall state the grounds
upon which it is based, and shall be tried contradictorily with the district attorney.” (Emphasis added)
38
La. C.Cr.P. art. 856 provides: “A motion for a new trial shall urge all grounds known and available to
the defendant at the time of the filing of the motion. However, the court may permit the defendant to
supplement his original motion by urging an additional ground, or may permit the defendant to file an
additional motion for a new trial, prior to the court’s ruling on the motion.” (Emphasis added)
39
Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 2010-2605, p. 5 (La. 3/13/12); 89 So.3d 307, 312 (“While the
Official Revision Comments are not the law, they may be helpful in determining legislative intent.”).
40
La. C.Cr.P. art. 852, Official Revision Comment – 1966 (b).
15
motion for new trial will not be denied the court’s consideration of that information
due to inartful pleading on the part of his attorney. The state is not prejudiced by
the defendant’s ability to supplement his new trial motion. The official revision
comment-1966 notes “[t]he district attorney can be fully protected by the court’s
granting of additional time to prepare to meet a surprise ground that is asserted by
the defendant.”41 As a practical matter, deletion of the 1928 Code’s limitation on
the introduction of proof is supported by the fact that La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(5) gives
the trial court plenary authority to order a new trial whenever in its opinion the
ends of justice would be better served, even if the defendant is not entitled to one
as a matter of strict legal right.42
These considerations raise the following question—given that a defendant
may be permitted to supplement his original motion, and the trial court’s plenary
authority to grant a new trial when it believes the ends of justice would be served
by a new trial, could a trial judge grant a new trial on a ground not raised in the
defendant’s motion as a “shortcut,” rather than ordering supplementation by the
defendant and allowing the state to challenge the additional information? We think
not, as there are important reasons underlying adherence to the rules governing
new trial motions as set forth by the legislature.
First, the defendant bears the burden of showing a valid reason for the trial
court to grant a new trial. The court cannot do so on its own motion and cannot
supply the reason the motion should be granted.43 Even under the rules of civil
procedure, where a trial court is authorized with discretionary authority to grant a
41
Id.42
Id.43
We have held “…when a court makes a ruling without right or authority, the ruling is ultra vires and is
of no effect.” State v. Davenport, 2013-1859, p. 20 (La. 5/7/14); __So.3d__; 2014 WL 1847820, *10.
Also, in State v. Macon, 2006-0481, p. 7 (La. 6/1/07); 957 So.2d 1280, 1285, we found “the trial court’s
sua sponte decision to convert the defendant's motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal into a motion
for new trial, then grant a new trial based on a finding that the State had failed to present sufficient
evidence to prove the crime with which defendant was charged, constituted legal error that must be
reversed.”
16
new trial on its own motion, we have stated “[t]he fact that a determination on a
motion for new trial involves judicial discretion does not imply that the trial court
can freely interfere with any verdict with which it disagrees.”44
Second, the defendant is required to state the grounds upon which his new
trial motion is based. Having the defendant specify his reasons for seeking a new
trial allows the state to challenge those reasons. The requirement that a
contradictory hearing be held allows the state the opportunity to present its
challenge to the defendant’s motion. The codal requirements of a written motion,
of the specification of grounds, and of a contradictory hearing would be
meaningless if the trial court could supply its own reasons for granting a new trial
and rule on another basis. As we stated in another case, “[t]o the extent that the
defendant relied solely on the grounds listed in La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(3) for granting
new trials he failed to provide the court with any other basis to rule on the
motion.”45
Here, the court of appeal decided not to address the merits of the only
ground actually raised by the defendant in his motion. The appellate court
declined to address the merits of the ground of newly discovered evidence
“because such evidence did not form the basis of the trial court’s granting of a new
trial.”46 The appellate court observed the defendant complied with La. C.Cr.P. art.
856 by listing the grounds then known and available to him, but “he could not have
been expected to know of the trial judge’s then-unexpressed reasons he would
ultimately assign to his ruling on defendant’s motion.”47 And if the defendant
44
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000-0445, p. 10 (La. 11/28/00); 774 So.2d 84, 93; see La. C.C.P. art.
1971 (“A new trial may be granted, upon contradictory motion of any party, or by the court on its own
motion, . . . .”).
45
State v. Mince, 1997-2947, p. 4 (La. 5/29/98); 714 So.2d 684, 686.
46
McKinnies, 2012-0335, p. 16; 119 So.3d at 156.
47
Id.
17
could not have known to raise the grounds, the state equally did not have an
opportunity to challenge those reasons. We find this result flies in the face of the
legislative scheme.
Third, the requirement that the defendant specify the grounds under which
he is seeking a new trial informs the trial court which type of review should be
afforded the information presented by the defendant. As we have seen in this case,
the trial judge’s review here was exactly the opposite of what his duty was under
the law in considering the defendant’s motion.
Finally, by following the legislative scheme—having the defendant specify
his reasons for seeking a new trial and allowing the state an opportunity to
challenge those reasons—the trial court is fully informed in its decision-making.
The reason underlying these procedural rules is the great discretion vested in the
trial court by the legislature under La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(5), to grant a new trial even
when the defendant may not be entitled to one as a matter of strict legal right. We
have described the trial court’s discretion in that respect as “almost unlimited.”48
We find that the legislature balanced the great discretion conferred on the trial
court in La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(5) by requiring adherence to the procedural rules.
Applying these concepts to McKinnies’ case, we find there was no
adherence to the procedural rules set forth by the legislature. Instead of inviting
the defendant to supplement his motion based on its appreciation of the allegations
of the defendant’s motion, which would have allowed the state to address those
additional reasons, the trial court, using the incorrect review standard for the
information, granted a new trial on a ground not raised by the defendant, and for
which no evidence was presented. The defendant did not show how an injustice
had been done to him. We are unable to discern a reason from the record, as there
is nothing in the motion or presented at the hearing which would support the trial
48
Guillory, 2010-1231, p. 4-5; 45 So.3d at 615.
18
court’s conclusion.49 Additionally, the record is unclear whether the allegations
raised by the defendant in his motion had anything to do with the trial judge’s
conclusions about the evidence presented at trial or his evaluation of the witnesses’
demeanor. In the absence of anything raised in the defendant’s motion or
presented at the hearing to justify the trial court’s ruling, we find the defendant
failed to show a valid ground for new trial and hold that the trial court abused its
discretion by granting the defendant’s motion for new trial.50
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court ruling granting a new trial is
reversed and vacated and the jury’s verdict is reinstated. This matter is remanded
to the trial court for sentencing of the defendant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
49
“[T]here is nothing evident from the hearing on the motion for a new trial that indicates why the trial
court granted a new trial to serve the ends of justice.” Guillory, 2010-1231, p. 6; 45 So.3d at 616.
50
“Where the exercise of discretion is arbitrary and not judicial, and the judgment is unjust, it will be set
aside.” Talbot, 408 So.2d at 885.
19
10/15/14
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 13-K-1412
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
QUINCY MCKINNIES, JR.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,
FIFTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
JOHNSON, Justice, dissents and assigns reasons.
I would affirm the decision of the court of appeal. Contrary to the majority
opinion, I find the trial court had the procedural authority to grant defendant a new trial
and did not abuse its wide discretion in finding that the verdict was contrary to law and
evidence and that the ends of justice would be served by ordering a new trial.
On January 26, 2011, the state charged defendant with aggravated assault on a
police officer with a handgun. A jury found defendant guilty as charged on October
18, 2011. Testimony at trial revealed that this case arose when five police officers and
one police K-9 (Dog) gave chase to defendant after he ignored a police officer’s
attempt to hand him a “parking” citation. Defendant then entered a vehicle and sped
away. At some point, defendant abandoned the vehicle and ran, and a foot case
ensued. One of the five officers giving chase, Officer Ryan Mekdessie, testified that
during the foot chase, he observed the defendant reach onto his waistband and, fearing
for his life, Officer Mekdessie fired a total of five gunshots striking both the defendant
and the police K-9. Detective Ashton Gibbs testified that he had seen a gun on the
floorboard of the vehicle driven by defendant when he ticketed the parked vehicle.
The defendant denied having a weapon and no weapon was ever found. With this
unusual backdrop, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for new trial pursuant to
La.C.Cr.P. art. 851(5) ruling that: “[T]he ends of justice would best be served by the
granting of a new trial, although the defendant may not be entitled to a new trial as a
matter of strict legal right.” The trial court issued a per curiam on March 5, 2012
outlining its reasons for granting the new trial under Article 851(5), stating:
The court after hearing the testimony of witnesses,
watching their demeanor while testifying, and considering
the evidence presented by all parties, has reasonable doubt
as to the guilt of the defendant. Therefore, the court
believes that the ends of justice would best be served by
granting defendant, Quincy McKinnies, a new trial.
The court of appeal upheld the trial court’s decision to grant defendant a new
trial, highlighting La.C.Cr.P. art. 851(1) and (5), which provide that the court shall
grant a new trial whenever (1) the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence; ... or
(5) the court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served. The court of
appeal found that the trial court adhered to the procedural and substantive
requirements in granting defendant’s motion for new trial, and that its reasons mirrored
that of the statute.1
The court of appeal noted that in addition to the basis of “ends of justice” under
Article 851(5), the trial court “expanded its ruling to include also La.C.Cr.P. art. 851(1)
as a basis for finding that a new trial was also warranted because the verdict was
contrary to the law and the evidence.”2 The court of appeal found that the trial court
granted the new trial on grounds not urged in defendant’s motion, but found that the
trial court “stated his reasons within the strict parameters of [art. 851] and the court
1
State v. McKinnies, 2012-0335 at 9 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/16/13); 119 So.3d 147,152.
2
McKinnies, 12-0335 at 10, 119 So. 3d at 153.
2
was within its discretion to consider additional grounds at the hearing.”3 The court of
appeal noted that “Nowhere did the Legislature dictate that the judge is restricted to
the grounds asserted in the motion filed by defendant.”4
Additionally, the court of appeal found that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by granting defendant a new trial under La.C.Cr.P. art. 851(1), noting that
under Article 851(1), the trial court sits as a “thirteenth juror,” reweighing the evidence
and determining whether it agrees with the jury’s resolution of the evidence, in effect
becoming the trier of fact.”5
The court of appeal further underscored that a “determination of the weight of
the evidence is a question of fact, and in a criminal case, such a determination is not
subject to appellate review.6 Moreover, under La.C.Cr.P. art. 858, “[n]either the
appellate nor supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be invoked to review
the granting or the refusal to grant a new trial, except for error of law.”
The decision on a motion for new trial rests within the sound discretion of the
trial judge, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of
abuse.7 The merits of such a motion must be viewed with extreme caution in the
interest of preserving the finality of judgments. As a general rule, a motion for new trial
will be denied unless injustice has been done.8
Prior Louisiana law provided that “[e]very motion for a new trial must specify
3
McKinnies, 12-0335 at 11, 119 So.3d at 153. (citing La.C.Cr.P. art. 856).
4
Id.
5
Id., (citing Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S. Ct. 2211, 72 L. Ed.2d 652 (1982) (setting
aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence, as opposed to the insufficiency of the evidence under
the Due Process Clause, does not bar retrial)).
6
La. Const. art. V, 10(B).” McKinnies, 12-0335 at 12, 119 So.3d at 12.
7
State v. Quimby, 419 So.2d 951, 959 (La. 1982).
8
State v. Johnson, 08 1488, p. 17 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/10/10), 33 So.3d 328, 338.
3
the grounds upon which relief is sought, must be tried contradictorily with the district
attorney, and the proof must correspond with the allegations of the motion.”9 The
current version of former article 507, La.C.Cr.P. art. 852, eliminates the latter
provision, and the Comments to the article note the significance of the change in
language:
The requirement of Art. 507 of the 1928 Code that the
proof must correspond with the allegations of the motion,
is omitted. A new trial should be granted any time the
defendant shows a valid ground therefor, even though he
failed to state the ground in his motion. The district
attorney can be fully protected by the court’s granting of
additional time to prepare to meet a surprise ground that is
asserted by the defendant. Deletion of the 1928 Code
limitation is supported, as a practical matter, by the fact that
Art. 851(5) gives the court plenary authority to order a new
trial whenever in its opinion the ends of justice would be
better served, even though no legal ground for a new trial is
stated. La.C.Cr.P. art. 852, Off’l Rev. Cmt (b) (emphasis
added).
The trial court had the authority in this situation to direct counsel to file a
supplemental motion for a new trial raising the ground that the court deems appropriate
for granting relief. La.C.Cr.P. art. 856 (“[T]he court may permit the defendant to
supplement his original motion by urging an additional ground, or may permit the
defendant to file an additional motion for a new trial, prior to the court’s ruling on the
motion.”) The trial court merely took a shortcut in finding grounds for granting
defendant's motion for a new trial which was based on (entirely) unpersuasive
allegations of newly discovered evidence ostensibly impeaching the credibility of
Officer Mekdessie. Here the testimony of Officer Mekdessie, the only witness to
testify that he saw the defendant with a gun in his hands, was at odds with the
testimony of the defendant who maintained that he did not have a gun in his
possession during the time in question. The trial court made a credibility determination
9
La.C.Cr.P. art. 507 (1928).
4
when it specified that he had “reasonable doubt,” which the court of appeal found
equated with a “not guilty” verdict.10
It is clear that La.C.Cr.P. art. 852 eliminated any requirement that proof must
conform to the allegations of the motion. As a consequence, "[a] new trial should be
granted any time the defendant shows a valid ground therefor, even though he failed
to state the ground in his motion."11 Given the trial court's express authority under
La.C.Cr.P. art. 856 to permit supplementation of a motion for new trial with additional
grounds, it is my view that the trial court may grant a new trial on a basis not alleged
by the defendant in his motion.
In my view, the trial court was correct to grant defendant a new trial. Thus, the
majority errs in reversing the court of appeal’s judgment affirming the trial court’s
grant of a new trial.
For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent.
10
McKinnies, 12-0335 at 13, 119 So. 3d at 154.
11
La.C.Cr.P. art. 852, Off'l Rev. Cmt (b).
5
10/14/15
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2013-K-1412
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
QUINCY MCKINNIES, JR.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,
FIFTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
VICTORY, J., concurs.