Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In March 2014, the state charged defendant Dominick Sims by bill of information with one felony count of trafficking of children for sexual purposes, in violation of R.S. 14:46.3. During the course of pretrial proceedings, defendant filed a motion to quash, challenging the constitutionality of R.S. 14:46.3. The trial court ruled the statute unconstitutional, but after review, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, specifically finding that the provisions of R.S. 14:46.3(C)(2) were clear and unambiguous and did not conflict with R.S. 14:46.3(A)(1). View "Louisiana v. Sims" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, defendant Ashaki Kelly was convicted of molestation of a juvenile and sentenced to fifteen years at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The Supreme Court granted defendant’s writ application to determine whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his conviction, and whether the court of appeal erroneously vacated defendant’s sentence as illegally lenient on errors patent review. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed that portion of the court of appeal’s ruling which upheld defendant’s conviction. However, the Court found that the court of appeal failed to conduct a proper errors patent review and erred in vacating defendant’s sentence. View "Louisiana v. Kelly" on Justia Law

Following deliberations, a six-person jury found defendant Gerald Dahlem guilty on a fourth offense of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), and the trial court sentenced defendant as a habitual offender to 25 years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The court of appeal affirmed both defendant’s conviction and his sentence. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the writ application in this case to determine whether trial by a jury composed of fewer jurors than required by law was a non-waivable structural defect which required that a defendant’s conviction be reversed and his sentence vacated. Specifically, the narrow question before the Court was whether defendant was denied a fair trial and due process of law because he was, without contemporaneous objection at trial, tried by a six-person jury, instead of a twelve-person jury, on his DWI charge. The Court found that due to defendant’s multiple offender status and subsequent sentence as such, his trial by a six-person jury was not an error requiring his conviction be reversed or his sentence vacated. View "Louisiana v. Dahlem" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Robert Coleman with for the first-degree murder of 70-year-old Julian Brandon, Jr., and the attempted first-degree murder of Brandon’s wife, Alice. A jury later found Coleman guilty and voted for the death penalty. The Louisiana Supreme Court found a “Batson” violation and remanded for a new trial. A second jury also found Coleman guilty and again voted for the death penalty. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence raising 38 assignments of error, variously combined into 21arguments. After a thorough review of the law and the evidence, the Louisiana Supreme Court found no merit in any alleged error relative to the issue of guilt. Therefore, the Court affirmed defendant’s first-degree murder conviction. However, the Court found error relative to the state’s failure to provide sufficient notice of evidence of an unadjudicated murder introduced in the penalty phase. Thus, the Court vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded this case for a new sentencing hearing. View "Louisiana v. Coleman" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on the allotment system of criminal cases in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court when the date of the offense is uncertain, specifically, whether La. Dist. Ct. Rule 14.0 or the defendants’ due process rights are violated by the case allotment system of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, which randomly assigns cases to different District Judges based on the first date of the first alleged offense. Defendants argued the procedure in place at the time of the allotment of their cases was unconstitutional as applied to multi-count, multi-defendant cases, or to cases in which the date of offense is uncertain and in which the prosecutor has discretion to allege the earliest date of a charged offense. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court’s allotment process was sufficiently random and did not vest the District Attorney with the power to choose the Judge to whom a particular case is assigned, instead tethering judicial assignment to the defendant’s conduct. As defendants presented no evidence of actual manipulation or prejudice, the Court reversed the Court of Appeal granting the motions to quash allotment and ordering re-allotment, reinstate the trial courts’ denials of the defendants’ motions to quash and/or for re-allotment, and remanded these cases to their respective trial courts for further proceedings. View "Lousiana v. Nunez" on Justia Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari in this matter to determine whether the lower courts erred in allowing certain expert psychological testimony as to the victim’s intelligence quotient (IQ) and in admitting into evidence a letter written by the expert which contained hearsay evidence. Defendant Vernon Mullins was indicted for the aggravated rape of J.W. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Defendant raised issues he claimed the trial court made that warrant reversal of sentence: (1) allowing Dr. Mark Vigen, the State’s expert psychologist, to present evidence as to the results of IQ testing he did not administer or score violated the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution; (2) the lower courts erred in allowing hearsay testimony and the introduction into evidence of a letter Dr. Vigen prepared in advance of trial, both of which were based on information gained from persons who did not testify; (3) the lower courts erred in allowing the introduction of Dr. Vigen’s letter, where the letter contained hearsay, not subject to any exception; and (4) the court of appeal erred in failing to find that the trial court had erred in allowing expert testimony where the State failed to comply with Article 705(B) of the Code of Evidence. After review, the Supreme Court found that the letter containing the IQ test results and introduced by the State for the primary purpose of proving an essential element of the crime of aggravated rape contains testimonial statements and therefore was subject to Confrontation Clause requirements. As a result, the trial court violated defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by ruling the letter could be admitted into evidence without testimony. Furthermore, the Court found that the introduction of the letter violated the hearsay rule. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decisions below, vacated Defendant's conviction and sentence, and remanded this case to the District Court for a new trial. View "Louisiana v. Mullins" on Justia Law

Defendant Quint Mire shot and killed Julian Gajan in 2011. They were hunting deer out-of-season. Defendant shot the victim three times with a semi-automatic shotgun, striking him in the head, neck, and torso from a distance of approximately 40 to 70 feet. Defendant collected the spent shotgun shells and left without trying to render aid and did not seek help. Defendant then discarded the shotgun shells in a canal. The victim was reported missing the next day. His body was found after a search by state and parish agencies and members of the community. Defendant stood by while others diligently searched and even took steps to divert attention from himself and cast suspicion on others. Defendant later admitted to detectives that he shot and killed the victim. He claimed it was a hunting accident. Defendant was charged with second degree murder and obstruction of justice. Defendant testified at trial, characterizing the shooting as a terrible mistake. When asked why he did not attempt to assist the victim, defendant claimed he had a crippling fear of the dead. The state’s witnesses described the tumultuous relationship between defendant and victim over the years and their various business disputes. The jury found defendant guilty as charged of second degree murder and obstruction of justice. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for murder, and 10 years imprisonment at hard labor for obstruction. The court of appeal, however, vacated defendant’s conviction for second degree murder, entered a judgment of guilty of negligent homicide, and remanded for sentencing because it found the evidence insufficient to establish defendant’s specific intent. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed. "The lynchpin of the court of appeal’s analysis was its determination that the state failed to establish a clear motive for the killing. The court of appeal erred in substituting its appreciation of the evidence regarding defendant’s motive for that of the jury, and thus failed to correctly apply the due process standard. Although the court of appeal found the evidence of specific intent equivocal, the jury’s acceptance of this evidence was not shown to be irrational." Defendant’s conviction for second degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor without parole eligibility were reinstated. View "Louisiana v. Mire" on Justia Law

In 2015, Derrick Shepherd filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and for Injunctive Relief. He filed a notice of candidacy qualifying form with the Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court’s office in which he certified that he would be a candidate for the office of State Representative for District 87 of the Louisiana House of Representatives in the primary election to be held on October 24, 2015. Shepherd's petition alleged that the District Attorney for the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District, filed a petition objecting to Shepherd's candidacy because Shepherd pled guilty to a felony in a United States District Court in 2008, and it had been less than fifteen years since he completed his sentence, circumstances which disqualified Shepherd from seeking office pursuant to La. Const. art. I, section 10(B). At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the district court rendered judgment in Shepherd’s favor, declaring Article I, section 10(B) of the Constitution null and void for failure to comply with the requirements of Article XIII, section 1 of the Constitution for promulgation of amendments to the Constitution. After reviewing the record, the legislative instruments, and the constitutional provision at issue, the Louisiana Supreme Court agreed with the district court that the constitutionally mandated requirements for amending the constitution were not followed in this case. View "Shepherd v. Schedler" on Justia Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Sledge Jeansonne Louisiana Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act, could be applied retroactively to defendant’s criminal misconduct which occurred prior to the effective dates of these statutes. Defendant Lynn Foret, a medical doctor who specialized in orthopedic surgery, pled guilty in federal court to one count of health care fraud, for criminal acts that occurred between 2003 and 2009. The trial court granted Dr. Foret’s declinatory exceptions, dismissing with prejudice, the State's action for penalties under the Sledge Jeansonne Act and dismissed with prejudice causes of action under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s rulings, finding that the conduct regulated by the substantive statute was the underlying fraud, rather than the subsequent guilty plea. Therefore, even though the State's cause of action could not have accrued until Dr. Foret pled guilty, application of the Acts nonetheless attached new consequences to his criminal misconduct, which occurred before the Acts became effective. One judge on the appellate panel dissented, reasoning the plain language of the Sledge Jeansonne Act demonstrated it was the guilty plea that gave the State Attorney General the authority to act, not the criminal activity, and because the guilty plea was entered after the effective date of the statute, its application herein would be prospective, not retroactive. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Sledge Jeansonne Act was not an impermissible retroactive application of the law. After review, the Supreme Court held that both the Sledge Jeansonne Act and Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act operated prospectively only, applying to causes of action arising after the effective date of each Act. The Court affirmed the court ofappeal ruling finding that the statutes at issue could not be retroactively applied to this defendant’s past criminal conduct. View "Louisiana v. Foret" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Wells was convicted of manslaughter in the 2008 shooting death of Brandon McCue. Defendant met with McCue to purchase marijuana. The two argued when McCue told defendant he had nothing to sell. According to defendant, the victim then pointed a handgun at him and instructed him to leave. Defendant returned to his own vehicle, retrieved his own handgun, then shot and killed McCue because he saw him "messing with the slide of his weapon." Defendant appealed contending, among other claims, that the jury was incorrectly instructed as to what constituted justifiable homicide. The court of appeal found the error in the instruction was not harmless and reversed. The State appealed, and finding that the court of appeal erred in its judgment, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Louisiana v. Wells" on Justia Law