Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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

Juvenile defendant J.M. was charged with simple battery and simple criminal damage to property. On February 25, 2013, J.M. appeared to answer the petition and entered a denial of the allegations. Pursuant to La. Ch. Code art. 877, the state had ninety days from the date of the answer hearing to adjudicate the case (here, until May 26, 2013). The juvenile court set a trial date of March 26, 2013. Defendant failed to appear for trial and an arrest warrant was issued for her arrest. Service was never rendered on the defendant. On April 17, 2013, the warrant was recalled when defendant appeared in court and a new trial date of May 14, 2013 was set. On May 13, 2013, for reasons unclear from the record, the State expressly requested an extension of the adjudication deadline from May 26, 2013 to May 28, 2013 without objection. The juvenile court granted the extension and set a hearing date of May 28, 2013. On that date, the state requested a second continuance of the adjudication hearing. The juvenile court denied the state’s motion to continue, noting the State had already been granted additional time and finding no good cause to grant an additional continuance. Critically, the State did not object to or seek review of this ruling, but instead entered a nolle prosequi and dismissed the case. The same day, the State filed a new petition alleging the same delinquent acts. An answer hearing for the refiled petition was set for June 11, 2013. On June 11, 2013, the record reflected service was not made on the defendant and a new hearing date was set for June 25, 2013. On that date, the juvenile court judge was absent and the matter was delayed until July 16, 2013. On that date, 141 days from the original answer hearing, J.M. appeared in court to answer the refiled petition. J.M. once again denied the allegations and moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the state violated the time limitations found in Louisiana Children’s Code Article 877. The juvenile court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. J.M. noticed intent to seek review of that ruling and appealed. The court of appeal granted defendant’s writ application and reversed the ruling of the juvenile court, dismissing the case on the basis that the state failed to adjudicate the matter within the time limitations provided in the Children’s Code. The State appealed the court of appeal’s decision, which the Supreme Court granted. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal ruling. View "Louisiana in the interest of J.M." 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

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

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

Maurice Hawley was charged with driving under the influence after a breath test demonstrated his blood alcohol concentration was above the legal limit. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the state’s introduction into evidence of the certification form attesting to the inspection and maintenance of the Intoxilyzer 5000 machine, and the certification form attesting to the qualifications of the maintenance technician who inspected, maintained and certified the machine, without producing the testimony of the technician, violated Hawley’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Finding these we hold these forms nontestimonial, and thus not subject to Confrontation Clause requirements, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the trial court's conviction. View "Louisiana v. Hawley" on Justia Law

Defendant Joseph Perkins argued on appeal of his conviction for possession of a "shank" by a convicted felon, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that ultimately convicted him. The district court sentenced defendant to fifteen years of hard labor, but the Court of Appeal reversed, finding the district court erred in its jury instructions. The State appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court. Upon review of the applicable laws implicated by the parties' arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeal erred in reversing the district court and by vacating defendant's sentence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Louisiana v. Perkins" on Justia Law

A jury convicted the defendant Eric Mickelson, of one count of first degree murder and sentenced him to death. In his direct appeal, defendant raised numerous assignments of error, including the failure of the district court to sustain his challenge for cause of a venire member and the lack of sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court found no merit to defendant's argument regarding sufficiency of the evidence. However, "constrained by statutory requirements," the Court found the district court erred in failing to excuse a prospective juror for cause. Thus, the Court reversed and vacated the conviction and death sentence, and remanded for a new trial. View "Louisiana v. Mickelson" on Justia Law

The State charged defendant with one count of simple burglary of a vehicle. The issue on appeal, presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether the District Court's failure to observe the strictures of a rule jurisprudentially created by the Fourth Circuit in "Louisiana v. Knighten," (609 So.2d 950 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992)), constituted a violation of the defendant's equal protection and due process rights under "Batson v. Kentucky," (106 S.Ct. 1712 (1986)), requiring a reversal of the jury's guilty verdict. Following voir dire, defendant raised Batson challenges relative to three of the State's peremptory strikes. After hearing the State's proffered race-neutral reasons, the District Court denied defendant's Batson challenges. Citing the State's failure to follow the so-called "Knighten rule," the Court of Appeal reversed defendant's conviction and sentence and remanded the case for a new trial. The Supreme Court found the "Knighten rule" undermined the well-established Batson framework the Louisiana Court adopted and repeatedly applied. Therefore, the Court reversed the Court of Appeal, reinstated defendant's conviction and sentence, and overruled Knighten insofar as it establishes the "Knighten rule." View "Louisiana v. Bender" on Justia Law