Opinion
22-K-144
04-05-2022
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. SHANTEL PARRIA IN RE STATE OF LOUISIANA
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE E. ADRIAN ADAMS, DIVISION "G", NUMBER 18-4457
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Hans J. Liljeberg
WRIT GRANTED IN PART FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE; DENIED IN PART; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Relator, the State of Louisiana, seeks review of the trial court's ruling to accept Dr. Maanasi Chandarana as an expert witness after the State's filing of a "Motion for Daubert and La. C.E. art. 702 hearings." For the following reasons, we grant the writ for a limited purpose to clarify and limit the scope of the expert's testimony in the field of pathology. As to all other relief requested, the writ is denied. We further remand this matter to the trial court for immediate resumption of trial by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 6, 2022.
On November 8, 2018, a Jefferson Parish grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant, Shantel Parria, with the second degree murder of her husband in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. On March 29, 2022, days prior to trial, the State filed a "Motion for Daubert and La. C.E. art. 702 hearings." In its motion and pertinent to this writ application, the State challenged a defense expert, Dr. Chandarana, a board certified psychiatrist in forensic psychiatry and psychiatry. Dr. Chandarana prepared an expert report entitled "Suicide Risk Assessment at Time of Death" to support defendant's defense at trial that her husband's death was a suicide rather than a homicide.
On March 31, 2022, the trial judge conducted a Daubert hearing at which Dr. Chandarana testified as to her qualifications, as well as her report, and the methodology and sources used to support her opinion concerning the victim's suicide risk at the time of his death. At the conclusion of the Daubert hearing, the trial judge stated on the record that he considered the Daubert factors as well as the provisions concerning expert testimony provided in La. C.E. art. 702, and determined that Dr. Chandarana's expert testimony would be beneficial to the trier-of-fact in this case. The transcript indicates that the trial judge accepted Dr. Chandarana as an expert in the three areas offered: forensic psychiatry, forensic neuropsychiatry, and pathology. On April 4, 2022, while voir dire was in progress, the State filed the instant writ application seeking review of the trial court's March 31, 2022 ruling. On that date, this Court issued a stay of the trial until Wednesday, April 6, 2022, at 9:00 a.m.
La. C.E. Art. 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony and provides that a witness, who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. State v. Achelles, 16-170 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/21/16), 208 So.3d 1068, 1077. In State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), regarding proper standards for the admissibility of expert testimony, which require the trial court to act in a gatekeeping function to ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable. State v. Boudoin, 11-967 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/12), 106 So.3d 1213, 1225, writ denied, 13-0255 (La.8/30/13), 120 So.3d 260. The Daubert inquiry consists of four considerations: (1) whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether the methodology is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. Id. at 1225. State v. Francois, 13-616 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/31/14), 134 So.3d 42, 59, writ denied, 14-0431 (La. 9/26/14), 149 So.3d 261(quotations omitted). A trial judge's decision to qualify an expert witness or to admit or exclude certain expert testimony is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. Id.; State v. Stokes, 99-1287 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/13/00), 759 So.2d 980, 984, writ denied, 00-1219 (La. 2/16/01), 802 So.2d 607.
Upon a thorough review of the writ application and attachments thereto, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in accepting Dr. Chandarana as an expert in forensic psychiatry, forensic neuropsychiatry, and pathology, and in finding that Dr. Chandarana's testimony would be beneficial to the trier-of-fact in this case. To address an issue raised by the State, however, we grant this writ for a limited purpose to clarify that the scope of Dr. Chandarana's expert testimony in pathology does not include opining on the cause of the victim's death. Pathology is "the study of the essential nature of diseases and especially of the structural and functional changes produced by them." In the context of this case and this witness's scope of expertise, pathology is limited to the study of the essential nature of mental health issues, conditions, disorders and diseases, specifically including the risk factors for suicide. In all other respects, this writ is denied.
See "Pathology." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pathology.
However, a review of the writ application reflects that the minute entry in the record states that Dr. Chandarana was accepted as an expert in "forensic psychology," which is inconsistent with the transcript. Because the transcript prevails, we hereby order the Clerk of Court for the 24th Judicial District Court to correct the minute entry to reflect that Dr. Chandarana was accepted as an expert in the three fields offered: forensic psychiatry, forensic neuropsychiatry, and pathology.
Moreover, because defendant remains incarcerated and this matter has been pending for approximately three years, we remand this matter for trial to be immediately resumed by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 6, 2022.
FHW
SMC
HJL