## Facts

- After an event known as the “Super Fair” near the New Orleans Superdome, Allen Delatte was shot and killed outside the Superdome.
- Police detectives developed Duvander Hurst as the suspected shooter.
- A WWL-TV news reporter went to the home of Ethel Hurst, the defendant’s mother, to ask about the shooting.
- Ethel told the reporter that she was Hurst’s mother and that Hurst had told her he was at the Super Fair but “did not have anything to do with the shooting.”
- The news report was videotaped; the footage showed only Ethel’s hand, but her statements were heard on the audio.
- Hurst later turned himself in, and the State charged him with second-degree murder.
- At trial, the State played the WWL-TV videotape for the jury.
- Ethel testified at trial and admitted that she made the statements to the reporter that were included in the broadcast.
- The defense objected to the videotape as “hearsay within hearsay,” based on (a) Ethel’s out-of-court statements to the reporter and (b) Hurst’s out-of-court statement to Ethel, repeated by Ethel.
- The defense also sought to present testimony about bullet types from a civil engineer, Richard Scheirman, who had some ballistics training; the trial court refused to qualify him as a ballistics/firearms witness and excluded the proposed testimony.
- The jury found Hurst guilty of second-degree murder, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the WWL-TV videotape when it contained two layers of out-of-court statements (Ethel’s statement to the reporter and Hurst’s statement to Ethel) that the defense claimed were inadmissible “hearsay within hearsay.”
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to qualify the defense witness as a ballistics/firearms witness and excluding his proposed testimony concerning bullet types.
3. Whether any other claimed trial errors required reversal of the second-degree murder conviction.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed Hurst’s conviction for second-degree murder.
- The court found no reversible error in allowing the jury to view the WWL-TV videotape over the defense’s hearsay-within-hearsay objection.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to qualify the defense witness in ballistics/firearms and in excluding the proposed testimony.
- The court rejected Hurst’s remaining assignments of error and left the verdict and sentence in place.

## Legal Principles

- Hearsay within hearsay may be admitted when each layer of the combined statement is independently admissible under a hearsay exclusion or exception.
- A defendant’s out-of-court statement, when offered by the State against the defendant, is generally admissible as a statement of a party opponent under Louisiana evidence rules.
- When a witness testifies at trial and acknowledges making the prior statement, admission of a recording of that statement may be treated as cumulative and is less likely to create unfair prejudice because the witness is available for cross-examination about what was said.
- Qualification of a witness to give opinion testimony in a specialized field depends on the witness’s knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education tied to that field; the trial court has wide discretion in deciding whether the showing is sufficient.
- Appellate courts review evidentiary rulings, including admission of recordings and decisions on witness qualification, for abuse of discretion and will not reverse absent prejudice affecting the verdict.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Hurst*, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed a second-degree murder conviction arising from a shooting outside the Superdome, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error by admitting a televised WWL-TV report that included the defendant’s mother recounting the defendant’s statement that he was at the Super Fair but uninvolved in the shooting, and further holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding the defense’s proposed ballistics-related testimony from a civil engineer who was not shown to be qualified in firearms/ballistics.


State v. Hurst, 828 So. 2d 1165 (2002)