State v. Colomb

On Writ of Certiorari to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal La.C.E. art. 404(B) provides in pertinent part that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admissible in a criminal trial ""when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding."" In this case, although it rejected the only other assignment of error on appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the court of appeal reversed the defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of La.R.S. 14:95.1 because it found that evidence of defendant's possession of marijuana discovered on his person immediately after the police found a semi-automatic handgun on the floorboard of the van he was driving did not relate to conduct forming an integral part of the charged offense. State v. Colomb, 98-210, p. 10 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/7/98), 720 So.2d rd 374, 379-80. The court of appeal further observed that, even assuming that defendant's drug possession constituted part of the res gestae or an integral component of his firearms possession, it could discern ""no relevant reason, other than prejudice . . . for its admission into evidence."" Colomb, 98-210 at 11, 720 So.2d at 380. The Third Circuit thus distinguished this case from those cases ""concerned with events that cannot be separated from the crime charged,"" and found that as a matter of the balancing test in La.C.E. art. 403, ""the admission of testimony concerning the drug possession is prejudicial to the point of outweighing any probative value it may have . . . ."" Colomb, 98-210 at 10-11, 720 So.2d at 380. We granted the state's application for review because it appeared that the court of appeal applied an unduly restrictive approach to integral act evidence under La.C.E. art. 404(B). We now reverse. The events leading to defendant's arrest began when the police spotted a van parked in the middle of the street in ""The Hill,"" an area in Opelousas known for drug trafficking. The defendant stood at the opened door on the driver's side of the vehicle; gathered around him were five or six individuals familiar to the officers from their illegal drug activity. As the group scattered at the approach of the officers intent on investigating conduct they found ""very suspicious"" of street-level drug trafficking, the defendant got back into the van and attempted to leave the scene. He stopped short when the officers ordered him to pull over, got out of the vehicle, stated that he ""didn't have anything,"" and invited the officers to prove him wrong. The officers found on the floorboard of the van a loaded .25 caliber semi-automatic handgun in a small tray partially tucked under the passenger seat but otherwise readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle. According to the officers, the defendant immediately stated something to the effect that, ""That's my old lady's gun. I just use it for my protection."" When the officers asked whether he had any drugs on his person, the defendant at first replied that he did not, but then pulled up his shirt to reveal a clear plastic bag containing marijuana. The defendant removed the bag and handed it over, explaining that it contained his personal ""stash.""