FROM JUVENILE COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2016-014-02-DQ-E,
SECTION "E" HONORABLE Desiree Cook-Calvin, JUDGE
A. Cannizzaro, Jr. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH Scott
Vincent ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH COUNSEL
FOR APPELLEE/STATE OF LOUISIANA
Katherine M. Franks LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT COUNSEL FOR
composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Joy Cossich
Lobrano, Judge Regina Bartholomew Woods)
Cossich Lobrano Judge
juvenile delinquency case, M.B.,  appeals his May 17, 2016
delinquency adjudication on charges of attempted carjacking
and attempted purse snatching. Finding that there is
sufficient evidence to support the delinquency adjudication,
and that no error in the proceedings below merits reversal,
we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
was arrested on January 11, 2016, following an incident at
the Mardi Gras Museum. On that day, V.E. and her child K.E.
attended a tour at the museum, after which they returned to
their vehicle. Upon entering the vehicle, a voice from the
back seat, later identified as M.B., ordered V.E. and K.E.
out of the car. They did not comply, and instead ordered M.B.
out of their vehicle.
left the back seat and attempted to drag V.E. from the car.
K.E. grabbed V.E., keeping her inside the car. After a
struggle, M.B. ceased trying to remove V.E. from the car and
instead attempted to grab V.E.'s purse, which was sitting
on the center console. This attempt was unsuccessful, and
drove out of the area quickly, and flagged down
Officer Jermell Taylor ("Officer Taylor"). V.E.
described her assailant to Officer Taylor, who broadcast a
description of the suspect. Officer Taylor began searching
for an individual who met the description V.E. had provided.
Officer Taylor saw M.B., who ran from the police car. M.B.
was apprehended and returned by officers to the area near the
Mardi Gras Museum where V.E. had flagged down Officer Taylor.
There, V.E. and K.E. both identified M.B. as the person who
attempted to carjack V.E.'s car and snatch her purse.
V.E. and K.E. identified him, M.B. was handcuffed beside a
police car about twenty feet from where V.E. and K.E. were
parked in their vehicle. Officer Taylor approached V.E. and
K.E., and said "we caught the
subject." V.E. then indicated to Officer Taylor that
M.B. was the individual who attempted to carjack her and
snatch her purse. K.E. also identified M.B.
January 14, 2016, the State of Louisiana ("State")
filed a delinquency petition charging M.B. with attempted
carjacking and attempted purse snatching. On January 29,
2016, as part of pretrial discovery, the prosecutor
transmitted the thirteen body camera videos associated with
this incident's NOPD item number to defense
adjudication hearing began on April 11, 2016. The State
called V.E. and K.E. to testify, after which the juvenile
court called for a recess for the weekend. The adjudication
hearing resumed on April 14, 2016. When the adjudication
hearing resumed, the State called Officer Taylor and NOPD
Sergeant Travis Brooks ("Sgt. Brooks") to testify.
Near the beginning of his direct examination, Sgt. Brooks
revealed that in addition to reviewing his own body camera
footage in preparation for the hearing, he had also reviewed
Officer Taylor's body camera footage. Upon hearing that
testimony, M.B. moved for a mistrial on the grounds that M.B.
had not been provided with Officer Taylor's body camera
footage. The State countered that M.B. was provided all body
camera footage associated with the relevant item number
through Evidence.com. The juvenile court reserved ruling on
the motion until the conclusion of Sgt. Brooks'
testimony. After Sgt. Brooks finished testifying, the State
bench conference took place following Sgt. Brooks'
testimony, and the prosecutor accessed Evidence.com. She then
discovered that two additional body camera videos were
present under the relevant item number. These files were not
present when the body camera footage was sent on January 29,
2016. The prosecutor then sent the defense the fifteen files
associated with the relevant item number through
Evidence.com. The defense noted that she received the
additional videos, and the juvenile court recessed for the
April 18, 2016, the adjudication hearing resumed. At that
time, the defense re-addressed the mistrial motion, stating
that the material was
"Brady"and that she wished to re-cross examine
Officer Taylor, V.E., and K.E. in light of the contents of the
two additional videos. After hearing these arguments,
juvenile court declared a mistrial. The defense attorney then
attempted to withdraw the motion for a mistrial, after the
juvenile court had already ruled, stating "I'd ask
the State to agree that we would just bring everyone back for
the purposes of the Defense specifically being crossed on the
information…." The juvenile court refused to
reconsider its ruling.
17, 2016, the second adjudication hearing took place. M.B.
was found delinquent for attempted carjacking and attempted
purse snatching. He was sentenced to three years in the
custody of Office of Juvenile Justice, with one year
appeal timely follows.
of the Identifications and Sufficiency of the Evidence
M.B. argues that his delinquency adjudication should be
reversed because the juvenile court should have granted his
motions to suppress both the out-of-court and in-court
identifications. Alternatively, M.B. argues that because the
identification was unreliable, the evidence was insufficient
to support the adjudication, and thus, the adjudication
should be reversed.
trial court's determination of the admissibility of
identification evidence is entitled to great weight and will
not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of
discretion." State v. Kimble, 2010-1559, p. 12
(La.App. 1 Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 782, 790. When determining
whether an out of court identification should be admitted,
courts focus on whether police used an "impermissibly
suggestive procedure" to obtain the identification.
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 107, 97 S.Ct.
2243, 2249, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). In so deciding, courts
must determine if the procedure gave rise to a substantial
likelihood of misidentification under a totality of the
circumstances. Id. Factors to consider when making
this determination include the victim's opportunity to
view the defendant, their level of attention, the accuracy of
the prior description, their level of certainty, and the time
between the crime and the identification. Id.
"Even a suggestive out-of-court identification will be
admissible if it is found reliable under the totality of the
circumstances." State v. Guy, 95-0899, pp. 9-10
(La.App. 4 Cir. 1/31/96), 669 So.2d 517, 523. This analysis
applies in juvenile cases as well as criminal cases. See
State ex. rel. C.J., 2010-1350, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir.
2/9/11), 60 So.3d 46, 50.
identification procedures,  like the one used in the case
sub judice, are not favored, but are permissible
when they are justified by the overall circumstances.
State v. Nogess, 98-0670, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir.
3/3/99), 729 So.2d 132, 134 (citations omitted); see also
State ex rel. W.H., 2010-1418, p. 7-8 (La.App. 4 Cir.
4/6/11), 62 So.3d 839, 845 (applying this principle when
reviewing a show-up identification that was admitted in a
juvenile delinquency adjudication). One-on-one
identifications are considered particularly justified when
the accused is apprehended within a relatively short period
of time after the crime has been committed and has been
returned to the crime scene. Id. This Court has
rejected the idea that one-on-one identifications are per
se suggestive. S ...