## Facts

- On May 8, 1988, a sheriff’s deputy approached Paul James.
- The deputy saw James drop a small piece of white paper.
- The paper was recovered and later found to contain cocaine.
- The State of Louisiana charged James with possession of cocaine.
- At trial, James testified in his own defense and stated that he did not possess cocaine on May 8.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked James whether he had ever used cocaine.
- Defense counsel objected; the prosecutor argued that because James testified, his character was open to cross-examination and that drug use bore on credibility in a drug case.
- The trial court overruled the objection and allowed the question; James answered that he “might have tried cocaine before.”
- Defense counsel objected again and moved for a mistrial; the trial court denied the motion.
- The jury found James guilty, and he appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to ask, on cross-examination, whether the defendant had ever used cocaine after he testified and denied possessing cocaine on the charged date.
2. Whether the appellate court should reverse based on the trial court’s denial of a mistrial when that claim was argued in briefing but not assigned as error.

## Decision

- The court affirmed James’s conviction and sentence.
- It rejected the sole assignment of error challenging the cross-examination question and found no reversible error from the brief inquiry about prior cocaine use in the context of the trial.
- It declined to consider the mistrial argument as an independent basis for relief because it was not assigned as error.
- After reviewing the record for errors patent, it found none requiring reversal.

## Legal Principles

- When a defendant testifies, the defendant’s credibility is placed at issue and may be attacked as with other witnesses, subject to the limits of the Louisiana Code of Evidence.
- La. Code Evid. art. 607 permits impeachment of a witness’s credibility; the court noted the article was not meant to make major changes to prior Louisiana impeachment practice.
- La. Code Evid. art. 608(B) bars using extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct to attack credibility and, consistent with Louisiana’s traditional approach, generally bars cross-examination about specific acts (including “vices” or courses of conduct) offered solely to attack credibility.
- Even where questioning risks exceeding these limits, an appellate court will not reverse absent a showing of reversible prejudice on the record as a whole.
- Appellate review is confined to properly assigned errors; arguments raised in briefs but not assigned are not considered as separate grounds for reversal. La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 920.
- The court independently reviews the record for patent error and will reverse only if such an error appears on the face of the record.

## Conclusion

State v. James, 569 So. 2d 135 (1990), affirmed a conviction for possession of cocaine where a deputy saw the defendant drop paper containing cocaine and, after the defendant testified and denied possession, the prosecutor asked whether he had ever used cocaine. The First Circuit found no reversible error in allowing the question and answer in the setting of the trial, refused to address the mistrial denial as a separate issue because it was not assigned as error, and found no patent errors warranting reversal.
