Opinion
No. 98-K-2056
November 25, 1998
IN RE: State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number 97-KA-1113; Parish of Jefferson 24th Judicial District Court Div. "A" Number 97-973
APPEAL FROM TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON PARISH, NO. 97-973, DIVISION "A", STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE WALTER J. ROTHSCHILD, J.
Granted in part as to McNabb; denied as to Lamothe. See per curiam.
PFC
WFM
HTL
CDK
JPV
CDT
JOHNSON, J. would deny the writ.
KNOLL, J. not on panel.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.
Granted in part as to McNabb; denied as to Lamothe. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the appellate court must consider all of the evidence introduced at trial, even evidence which the court admitted erroneously. State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731, 734 (La. 1992). Accordingly, as to McNabb only, this case is remanded to the court of appeal to consider whether Lamothe's statement in addition to the other evidence presented at trial supported the jury's verdict. If the appellate court finds that the totality of the evidence presented satisfied the Jackson standard, it must determine whether the trial court erred in admitting Lamothe's statement against McNabb and, if so, whether the court's error requires reversal of his conviction or was harmless. Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 430, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 1059, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972) ("In some cases the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the codefendant's admission is so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper use of the admission was harmless error.")
JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ.