## Facts

- The State of Louisiana charged Terry Emerson with second-degree murder for the stabbing death of Jerome Hudson.
- The State’s witnesses described a fight between Emerson and Hudson in a parking lot; the confrontation ended, and the men went into a nearby building.
- Two eyewitnesses testified that, once inside, Emerson approached Hudson carrying a large kitchen knife and stabbed Hudson in the chest.
- One witness testified Hudson was unarmed at the moment of the stabbing; the other witness testified he did not see whether Hudson had anything in his hands.
- Hudson died from the stab wound.
- Emerson sought to call Rachelle Price to testify about a telephone conversation she had with Emerson about an hour after the stabbing.
- The State objected that Price’s testimony would repeat Emerson’s out-of-court statement for its truth (hearsay), and the trial court sustained the objection.
- To preserve the issue for appeal, Emerson proffered that Price would have testified Emerson said he was not trying to hurt Hudson, but people had crowded him and he acted in self-defense.
- The jury found Emerson guilty as charged of second-degree murder.
- The trial court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
- Emerson appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia for a rational jury to find Emerson guilty of second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt and to reject Emerson’s claim of self-defense.
2. Whether the trial court erred by excluding, as hearsay, Price’s testimony repeating Emerson’s post-incident phone statement that he acted in self-defense.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Emerson’s conviction for second-degree murder and his mandatory life sentence.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for a rational jury to find the elements of second-degree murder proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to find the killing was not justified as self-defense.
- The court held the trial court properly excluded Price’s testimony because Emerson’s statement was an out-of-court, self-serving assertion offered for its truth and did not fall within a recognized hearsay exception requiring admission.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate sufficiency review applies Jackson v. Virginia: the court asks whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- When self-defense is raised in a homicide case, the factfinder may accept or reject it based on the totality of the testimony and physical evidence; credibility choices belong to the jury and are not reweighed on appeal absent a clear conflict with the evidence.
- A defendant generally may not introduce his own out-of-court statement through another witness to prove the truth of the statement; it is hearsay unless it fits a specific exception.
- A statement made after the incident, in a reflective setting such as a later phone call, is less likely to qualify as a spontaneous or event-connected hearsay exception, and exclusion is reviewed for legal error under the evidence rules.

## Conclusion

State v. Emerson affirmed a second-degree murder conviction and mandatory life sentence where eyewitness testimony supported the jury’s finding that Emerson approached the victim after an earlier fight had ended and stabbed him with a large kitchen knife, permitting the jury to reject self-defense; the court also upheld exclusion of a witness’s testimony about Emerson’s post-stabbing phone statement because it was inadmissible hearsay not within an applicable exception.


State v. Emerson, 722 So. 2d 373 (1998)