## Facts

- Louisiana charged James Harvey, Rennie Atwell, and Diane Lawrenson with the first-degree murder of Robert Alexander under La. R.S. 14:30.
- Lawrenson’s case was severed. The State granted her immunity, and she testified for the prosecution at the joint jury trial of Harvey and Atwell.
- Lawrenson testified that she, Harvey, and Atwell agreed to rob Alexander; that Harvey and Atwell killed Alexander during the robbery; and that all three later shared the robbery proceeds.
- The State introduced additional evidence, including color photographs showing the robbery scene and Alexander’s body, including a bullet wound.
- Harvey and Atwell objected to the photographs as unfairly prejudicial and offered to stipulate to Alexander’s identity, the fact of death, and the cause of death.
- The prosecution responded that the photographs remained relevant because they supported and confirmed Lawrenson’s account of how the robbery and shooting occurred.
- The trial court admitted the photographs and denied requests to sever the defendants’ trials.
- The jury convicted Harvey and Atwell of first-degree murder without capital punishment, and each received a life sentence without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying severance when a defendant claimed a joint trial prevented him from obtaining exculpatory testimony from a co-defendant?
2. Did the trial court err by admitting color crime-scene and victim photographs after the defense offered to stipulate to identity, death, and cause of death, on the theory that the photographs’ probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice?
3. Was the evidence sufficient to support first-degree murder convictions where the State’s case relied heavily on testimony from an immunized participant in the robbery and killing?

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and life sentences.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in denying severance because the claimed prejudice was not shown with specificity, including no concrete showing that the co-defendant would testify and provide admissible, materially exculpatory testimony if tried separately.
- The court upheld admission of the photographs, concluding they retained probative value beyond proving death and cause of death, including corroboration of Lawrenson’s narrative of the robbery and shooting, and the trial judge did not err in concluding that probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.
- The court rejected the defendants’ remaining claims of trial error and concluded the record supported the jury’s verdicts, including under the State’s theory that the killing occurred during the planned armed robbery involving the defendants.

## Legal Principles

- Severance of jointly charged defendants is generally within the trial court’s discretion; a defendant seeking severance must show more than speculation that a co-defendant might provide helpful testimony.
- A defendant’s offer to stipulate to certain facts does not prevent the State from introducing relevant evidence; the prosecution may present otherwise admissible proof even if a fact could be established by stipulation.
- Photographs of a homicide victim or crime scene may be admitted when they are relevant to the State’s narrative (including corroborating witness testimony about the circumstances of the crime) and the trial court reasonably determines the probative value is not outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- A conviction may rest on testimony from an involved witness (including one who received immunity) if the testimony is not incredible on its face and the jury, as factfinder, is entitled to accept it in light of the record as a whole.

## Conclusion

State v. Harvey affirmed Harvey’s and Atwell’s first-degree murder convictions and life sentences, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying severance based on an unsupported claim of lost co-defendant testimony, properly admitted crime-scene and victim photographs despite defense stipulations because the images still corroborated the State’s version of the robbery and shooting, and that the evidence, including the immunized accomplice’s testimony viewed with the full record, was sufficient to sustain the verdicts.


State v. Harvey, 358 So. 2d 1224 (1978)