## Facts

- Percy M. Taylor was charged in Jefferson Parish with distribution of counterfeit cocaine under La. R.S. 40:971.1.
- Undercover Agent Robin Jones approached Taylor in the Acre Road Housing Project area to buy narcotics.
- Jones asked for “two 20s,” and Taylor directed her to another location where she gave him money and received two off-white, rock-like objects.
- A field test of the items was negative for cocaine; the transaction was videotaped.
- A reviewing officer identified Taylor from the video, and Jones later identified Taylor in a photographic lineup.
- Before trial, Taylor moved in limine to exclude evidence of prior felony convictions (1985 simple robbery; 1989 heroin possession; 1995 cocaine distribution), arguing they were too remote and insufficiently similar, particularly if he asserted entrapment.
- The trial court denied the motion, indicating the convictions could be used to prove predisposition if Taylor raised entrapment.
- Taylor did not testify and did not present an entrapment defense; the State did not introduce the prior convictions at trial.
- A jury found Taylor guilty, and he received a three-year hard-labor sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether denying the motion in limine and allowing prior convictions to be used to show predisposition if entrapment were raised violated Taylor’s constitutional right to present a defense.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Louisiana evidence rules by conditionally permitting other-crimes evidence for predisposition in response to an entrapment defense.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion in limine.
- The court held there was no constitutional violation because Taylor remained free to assert entrapment, subject to the evidentiary consequences of placing predisposition at issue.
- The court noted the prior convictions were never introduced at trial because Taylor did not raise entrapment.

## Legal Principles

- Under La. C.E. art. 404(B)(1), other-crimes evidence is inadmissible to prove character but may be admissible for a non-character purpose if it has independent relevance and satisfies applicable proof and balancing requirements.
- A trial court’s other-crimes evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- When a defendant raises entrapment, the State may rebut inducement by proving the defendant’s predisposition; prior similar criminal acts may be relevant to predisposition.
- Remoteness in time does not automatically bar other-crimes evidence; it is one factor in weighing probative value against unfair prejudice.
- A defendant’s right to present a defense does not include a right to present the defense while excluding otherwise admissible evidence that becomes relevant because of the defense theory.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Taylor’s conviction, holding that a trial court may conditionally allow prior convictions to be used to prove predisposition if a defendant raises entrapment, and that such a conditional ruling neither constituted an abuse of discretion nor deprived Taylor of the right to present a defense.


State v. Taylor, 888 So. 2d 272 (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004)