## Facts

- Louisiana State Police Trooper Mike Epps stopped Daniel Lobato for a routine traffic violation while Lobato was driving on a Louisiana highway.
- Lobato told Epps he had traveled from Texas to Mississippi for the weekend and had no luggage, but Epps saw a suitcase in the back seat.
- Epps requested permission to search the vehicle, and Lobato consented.
- Officers opened the suitcase and found small particles of marijuana and detected the odor of marijuana.
- Officers arrested Lobato for possession of marijuana; during the encounter, Lobato produced approximately $18,000 in cash carried on his person in small bundles.
- Lobato told officers the money related to a roofing job and belonged to someone else.
- Sergeant James Cannon later testified that Lobato admitted transporting marijuana from Texas to Mississippi for Robert Phillips and delivering it to Gary Veazey in exchange for $18,000.
- The State charged Lobato with conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute.
- At trial, Lobato denied telling Cannon he transported marijuana and testified he believed he was traveling to Mississippi to collect money owed for a roofing job and did not know he was involved with drugs.
- The prosecution raised hearsay objections when Lobato attempted to testify about (1) conversations with his employer, (2) instructions from Phillips, and (3) conversations with Veazey; the trial court sustained the objections and excluded the testimony.
- Defense counsel did not make the arguments and objections needed to clearly preserve appellate review of the evidentiary rulings.
- A jury convicted Lobato, and the trial court sentenced him to four and one-half years at hard labor and a $1,250 fine; the court of appeal affirmed.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review to consider, among other things, whether the excluded testimony prevented Lobato from presenting his defense and whether counsel’s performance was affected by a conflict of interest arising from dual representation.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s hearsay rulings excluding Lobato’s testimony about what others told him improperly prevented him from presenting a defense that he lacked knowledge of any drug conspiracy.
2. Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance—particularly due to an actual conflict of interest stemming from counsel’s representation of Lobato and alleged co-conspirator Robert Phillips—by failing to properly present and preserve the evidentiary and defense theories.
3. Whether the evidence introduced by the State was sufficient to establish (at least) a prima facie case of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute.
4. Whether Lobato’s sentence was unconstitutionally excessive.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court conditionally affirmed Lobato’s conviction and sentence.
- The Court concluded the record contained evidence that, if unrebutted, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute.
- The Court recognized that some excluded third-party statements could have been relevant to Lobato’s state of mind (his claim that he believed he was collecting a roofing debt), but emphasized that defense counsel did not properly frame the testimony’s limited, non-hearsay purpose or preserve the issue for ordinary appellate review.
- Because the record suggested a serious possibility that counsel’s performance was affected by a conflict of interest arising from dual representation and third-party payment arrangements connected to Phillips, the Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether an actual conflict adversely affected counsel’s representation.
- The Court rejected the excessive-sentence claim under Louisiana’s constitutional standard.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense, but that right operates within established evidentiary rules; hearsay exclusions generally remain enforceable unless misapplied in a way that meaningfully blocks the defense.
- Out-of-court statements offered for their truth are hearsay, but similar statements may be admissible for a limited, non-hearsay purpose (such as showing the defendant’s state of mind or explaining conduct) if properly offered and limited.
- To obtain full appellate review of an evidentiary ruling, trial counsel must make timely, specific objections and clearly state the ground for admissibility; failure to do so can forfeit direct review and shift the claim into ineffective-assistance analysis.
- When no objection to joint or dual representation is made at trial, a defendant claiming a conflict of interest must show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance; if the appellate record is insufficient to decide that question, a remand for an evidentiary hearing is appropriate.
- A prima facie case of conspiracy is shown when the State introduces evidence that, if unrebutted, would be sufficient to establish the facts of the conspiracy.
- A sentence is constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense or amounts to purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering; gross disproportionality is assessed by whether the punishment shocks the sense of justice.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Lobato*, the Louisiana Supreme Court conditionally affirmed a conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute arising from a traffic stop, marijuana found in a suitcase, and $18,000 in bundled cash, while holding that questions about excluded defense testimony were intertwined with counsel’s failure to properly present and preserve admissibility arguments; the Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether counsel’s dual representation created an actual conflict that adversely affected Lobato’s defense, and otherwise left the conviction and sentence in place subject to the remand outcome.


State v. Lobato, 603 So. 2d 739 (1992)