Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On March 10, 2010, the Plaquemines Parish Government (PPG) acquired ownership of the state school located at 251 F. Edward Hebert Blvd. in Plaquemines Parish from the Department of Health and Hospitals. In January 2011, contractors working at the site reported that the power was off and that copper wire had been removed from one or more of the buildings over the weekend. A detective responded to the report and determined that the copper wire to three buildings grouped together in one of the complexes on the grounds had been pulled out “from the breakers, all the way through the walls and through the ceiling.” It appeared that a vehicle had been used to pull the wire out of the three buildings. Less than a month later, a second incident also involving the massive loss of electrical copper wiring occurred at the site in one of the five buildings comprising the Beech Grove complex at the back of the sprawling grounds and farthest away from the entrance on F. Edward Hebert Blvd. Left behind was some sort of remote vehicle key pad access device. Also left behind were spots of blood on the otherwise clean linoleum floor inside the building and samples were taken. The DNA found in the sample was matched to defendant’s DNA profile in CODIS and a warrant for his arrest issued on the basis of the two preliminary DNA matches. Defendant was charged with two counts of simple burglary. After trial before a six-person jury in August 2012, he was found guilty of unauthorized entry of a place of business on count one and not guilty on count two. The trial court sentenced him to six years at hard labor. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit pretermitted other assignments of error and reversed defendant’s conviction and sentence on grounds of insufficient evidence. Finding, however, that the evidence was indeed sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, and defendant's conviction and sentence were reinstated. View "Louisiana v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Louisiana Law to the Louisiana Supreme Court: did the dismissal of Scott Lemoine's criminal stalking prosecution (pursuant to the state Code of Criminal Procedure article 691) constitute a bona fide termination in his favor for the purposes of the malicious prosecution suit before the federal appellate court? The Louisiana Supreme Court answered in the affirmative: "a dismissal of a criminal prosecution pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 691 will constitute a bona fide termination in favor of the malicious prosecution plaintiff unless the charge is dismissed pursuant to an agreement of compromise, because of misconduct on the part of the accused, or in his behalf for the purpose of preventing trial, out of mercy requested or accepted by the accused, because new proceedings for the same offense have been instituted and have not been terminated favorably to the accused, or when the dismissal is due to the impossibility or impracticality of bringing the accused to trial." View "Lemoine v. Wolfe" on Justia Law

At a pretrial hearing on the State’s motion to introduce evidence of defendant Gary Layton's 1997 "sexually assaultive behavior," the trial court ruled the evidence was inadmissible because defendant’s alleged conduct did not meet the "elements of a sexual battery" as defined by state law. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Trial Court and denied supervisory writs. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court, finding that Louisiana law does not strictly limit evidence of past "sexually assaultive behavior" to sexual offenses. The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Louisiana v. Layton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the writ application in this case to determine whether the plaintiff was precluded from asserting a claim for punitive damages after having settled such claims relating to fear of contracting cancer and increased risk of developing cancer in a prior suit, albeit with a reservation of rights as to a claim for damages related to future cancer diagnosed after the effective date of the settlement agreement. The trial court found res judicata barred the plaintiff’s subsequent claim for punitive damages relating to the diagnosis of cancer where the same alleged misconduct had given rise to the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages in the earlier litigation asserting fear of contracting cancer and increased risk of developing cancer. The court of appeal granted writs and summarily reversed the trial court’s ruling, holding the plaintiff had established an exception to res judicata under La. Rev. Stat. 13:4232(A)(3), because he had reserved his right to bring another action based on the future diagnosis of cancer. After its review, the Supreme Court held that the punitive damages related to conduct and were separate from compensatory damages for injury. Because the plaintiff in this case specifically released all punitive and exemplary damages arising out of the defendant’s alleged misconduct, his subsequent claim for punitive damages was barred by res judicata. View "Chauvin v. Exxon Mobil Corp." on Justia Law

In 2009, defendant Daniel Marshall ended a love triangle by repeatedly shooting Ronald Hodges, Jr., as Hodges ran toward Marshall, jumping off the porch of a residence. The residence belonged to Ebony Gastinell, the mother of his three children. In all, Hodges sustained five gunshot wounds: two to the back, and projectile fragment abrasions on his right shoulder, arm and hand. The police found nine spent casings scattered on the ground but did not find any firearms discarded on the scene. Following defendant’s second degree murder trial and his conviction and sentence for the lesser verdict of manslaughter, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal vacated defendant’s conviction and sentence upon finding that the prosecutor’s use of defendant’s post-arrest silence was not harmless because it undercut his plausible self-defense claim. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the State’s writ application, and, after reviewing the record and the applicable law, reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and reinstated defendant’s conviction and sentence. View "Louisiana v. Marshall" on Justia Law

After he was convicted, defendant moved for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The state challenged the claim presented on both procedural and substantive grounds. No evidence was submitted at the hearing on the motion. Nevertheless, the trial court granted the defendant a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence and the ends of justice would be served by ordering a new trial. In a split-panel decision, the court of appeal affirmed, finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in granting the defendant’s motion. After its review, however, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding the defendant failed to show a valid ground for new trial and held that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the defendant’s motion. The court of appeal erred in affirming the district court’s decision. View "Louisiana v. McKinnies, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Cynthia Holliday alleged she was unlawfully terminated from her employment with the State while on leave in 2009, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993's (FMLA) “self-care” provision. The State filed an Exception of No Cause of Action on the basis of sovereign immunity, which the district court denied. The Fourth Circuit denied Supervisory Writs. After its review, the Supreme Court found the trial court erred as matter of law in denying the State’s Exception of No Cause of Action. "While Louisiana may have waived sovereign immunity with respect to some claims, La. Const. art. 1 section 26 makes it clear the State has not waived its sovereignty within the federal system." The Louisiana Supreme Court found the trial court erred as a matter of law in determining the State had elected to waive its sovereign immunity for purposes of the FMLA. View "Holliday v. Board of Supervisors of LSU Agricultural & Mechanical College" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal in this case was whether defendant Paul Massey was eligible to receive “good time” credits when the law changed after the offenses were committed, eliminating Massey’s eligibility to earn early release. In 2006, the Legislature amended the statute that gave inmates the capacity to earn early release from their prison sentence in exchange for good behavior and the performance of work or self-improvement activities. The amendment significantly narrowed the class of inmates qualified to receive good time credits, excluding from eligibility, as pertinent here, those convicted of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile or molestation of a juvenile. Massey committed both felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile and attempted molestation of a juvenile in 1994. His victims, however, did not report his crimes to the authorities until 2004, and a jury did not convict Massey of these offenses until 2007. The Supreme Court was asked to decide which version of the good time statute applied to Massey - the law in effect at the time he committed his crimes or the law in effect at the time of his conviction, which would have denied him early release regardless of his demonstrated good behavior. Because the rescission of good time eligibility creates a significant risk of prolonging his incarceration and increases the severity of Massey’s sentence by altering the terms and conditions under which he must serve his penalty, the Supreme Court found application of the amended law would violate the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions. Applying the law in effect at the time the offenses were committed, the Court found Massey was eligible to receive good time credits and is entitled to have his time recomputed under the statute before it was amended. View "Massey v. Louisiana Dept. of Safety & Corrections" on Justia Law

The district court found that House Bill 974 of the 2012 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, which was enacted as Act 1 of 2012 (Act 1), violated the single object requirement for legislative bills as provided for in La. Const. art. III, section 15(A). Act 1 of 2012 amended, reenacted and repealed various statutes in Title 17. Looking first at the title, and then to the body of Act 1, the Supreme Court concluded that the subject of the act is elementary and secondary education, and the object of the act was improving elementary and secondary education through tenure reform and performance standards based on effectiveness. After examining the numerous provisions of Act 1, the Court determined that "they all have a natural connection and are incidental and germane to that one object." In order to overturn a legislative enactment pursuant to the one-object rule, “the objections must be grave and the conflict between the statute and the constitution palpable.” In this case, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, East Baton Rouge Federation of Teachers, Jefferson Foundation of Teachers, Nellie Joyce Meriman, and Kevin Joseph DeHart, failed to establish that such a grave and palpable conflict existed between Act 1 and the one-object rule of La. Const. art. III, section 15. Because the district court pretermitted consideration of the other constitutional arguments raised by plaintiffs, i.e., that Act 1 violated due process rights pursuant to La. Const. art. I, section 2, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the case was remanded for consideration of those issues. View "Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. Louisiana" on Justia Law

L.D. was charged with the commission of a felony-grade delinquent act of unauthorized use of a movable. Although La.Ch.C. art. 854(A) required in this instance that L.D. appear to answer the delinquency petition within five days of filing because he was continued in custody, the district court set the answer hearing for the next available court date dedicated to juvenile matters, 27 days later. L.D. appeared at that time, objected to the untimeliness of the hearing, and asked for his release from custody and for dismissal of the delinquency petition. The juvenile judge found, consistent with a policy of that court, that the court’s scheduling constraints constituted "good cause" for the delay under La.Ch.C. art. 854(C). The court therefore declined to dismiss the petition and release L.D. from custody, and the juvenile did not seek immediate review of that ruling. The court adjudicated L.D. delinquent 21 days later, within the 30 days from the answer hearing afforded by La.Ch.C. art. 877(A). On appeal, L.D. contended that his adjudication hearing was nevertheless untimely and that the petition should therefore have been dismissed because each step in delinquency adjudication process "should be seen as carefully and closely placed, like dominoes in a row, and that by wrongly delaying the answer hearing, the juvenile court judge triggered a cascade, a rippling effect, that ended in an adjudication that should be viewed as untimely as well." The court of appeal found that the juvenile judge erred in denying L.D.’s motion for release based on failure to timely hold the answer hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed: "[w]e [. . .] agree with the court of appeal majority that the legislature did not subscribe to the rippling effect advocated by L.D., such that the slightest perturbation in the steady march of various time limits through the process results inexorably in the dismissal of a delinquency petition. The court of appeal noted, and all parties agree, that La.Ch.C. art. 854 specifies no remedy when the time afforded for an answer hearing is exceeded without good cause. The provisions of the Children’s Code governing delinquency proceedings otherwise contain several explicit time limits. [. . .] Only when the time afforded by La.Ch.C. art. 877 to commence the delinquency adjudication following the answer hearing is exceeded must the court dismiss the petition at the request of the juvenile." View "Louisiana in the Interest of L.D." on Justia Law