## Facts

- The State of Louisiana charged Anthony Crockett with armed robbery of Harmon Wright under La. R.S. 14:64.
- After his arrest, Crockett received Miranda warnings, waived his rights, and gave police a statement about the robbery.
- On July 17, 2003—the date set for trial—Crockett told his lawyer he had additional information he wanted to give to the district attorney’s office and the police about the robbery.
- In open court, the prosecutor stated on the record that there were no plea deals or plea negotiations in progress and that the State intended to prosecute Crockett for the charged offense.
- The prosecutor also stated she understood Crockett would be waiving his right against self-incrimination and would be giving a statement to police.
- Defense counsel and the trial court likewise indicated on the record their understanding that no plea offer or bargain was being extended to Crockett.
- The trial court granted a five-day continuance to allow the State to investigate the new information Crockett wanted to provide.
- A detective came to the courthouse that day and took Crockett’s July 17 statement.
- When trial resumed, Crockett moved to suppress the July 17 statement, arguing it was inadmissible hearsay and that it was made in connection with plea negotiations.
- The trial court denied the motion and allowed the State to introduce the statement at trial.
- The jury found Crockett guilty of armed robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to 13 years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
- Crockett appealed to the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, challenging (among other rulings) the admission of the July 17 statement.

## Issues

1. Whether Crockett’s July 17, 2003 statement to a detective at the courthouse was inadmissible because it was made in the course of plea negotiations, even though the prosecutor stated on the record that no plea discussions or offers existed.
2. Whether the July 17 statement was inadmissible hearsay when introduced by the State against Crockett at trial.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit affirmed Crockett’s conviction and sentence.
- The court held the July 17 statement was not made in the course of plea negotiations and therefore was not excluded on that ground.
- The court rejected the hearsay argument because a defendant’s own statement, offered against him by the State, is admissible as a party admission under Louisiana evidence law.
- The court found no error in the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress.

## Legal Principles

- A statement is excluded as a plea-related communication only when it is made in connection with actual plea discussions (or in circumstances that make a belief in bargaining objectively reasonable).
- A defendant’s unilateral desire for leniency does not convert a voluntary statement into a plea-negotiation statement when the prosecutor has made a clear, on-the-record representation that no plea deal or bargaining is occurring.
- On-the-record confirmations by the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the court that no plea offer exists support the conclusion that a later statement to police was not part of plea discussions.
- A criminal defendant’s out-of-court statement offered by the State against him is treated as an admission of a party opponent and is not barred by the hearsay rule.
- A post-arrest statement is generally admissible when the defendant has been advised of Miranda rights and the statement is voluntary.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed because Crockett’s July 17 courthouse statement followed an on-the-record clarification that no plea bargaining or plea offer was underway, making plea-discussion protections inapplicable, and because the statement—introduced by the State against Crockett—qualified as a party admission rather than inadmissible hearsay.


State v. Crockett, 886 So. 2d 1139 (2004)