State v. Carter
Louisiana Court of Appeal
762 So. 2d 662 (2000)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
The State of Louisiana (plaintiff) charged Yvette Scott, also known as Yvette Carter (defendant), with second-degree murder based on the shooting death of her husband, Roger Scott. At trial, Carter testified that on November 21, 1993, she met Scott at a lounge, where Scott repeatedly hit her and threatened to kill her. Carter testified that Scott told her he was going to get a gun from his truck and that Carter pulled a gun from her purse and shot Scott when she saw him reach for something in the truck. Carter further testified that she called her sister, Georgette Lemon, after the shooting and asked Lemon to go to the hospital and donate blood for Scott. Lemon testified that Carter called her at 3:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m. and asked her to give blood. To rebut the testimony about the phone call, the state called a Bell South employee to introduce cellular-phone records for the account in Scott’s name. The records indicated that one telephone call was made on November 21, 1993, at 3:19 a.m. and another call at 3:58 a.m. Another Bell South employee testified that the number dialed from the phone on Scott’s account belonged to Shwanda Matthews, not Georgette Lemon. The jury ultimately found Carter guilty of manslaughter, and she appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal. On appeal, Carter argued that the telephone records were inadmissible hearsay.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McKay, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.