Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The state charged defendant by bill of information with failing to maintain his registration as a convicted sex offender by failing to appear for his quarterly registration with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office. Defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of information on grounds that he had fully satisfied any registration duty he may have had before establishing residence in Louisiana and that he was therefore under no legal obligation to register as a sex offender in the state. Defendant argued, and the trial court agreed, that he had satisfied his duty to register in Louisiana by operation of law under the existing 10-year period by December 2005, and that he therefore had no duty to register when he came to Louisiana in March 2009. The trial court rejected the state’s argument that the registration period, whether measured by 10 years or 25 years, had not lapsed because it had not begun until defendant moved to this state in 2009. The court of appeal agreed with defendant in a split panel decision that his "duty to register expired by operation of law in December 2005, 10 years after his release from custody and a little over two years prior to the effective date of the [2007] amendment." The Supreme Court after its review disagreed with the trial and appellate courts and reversed: "defendant was not 'a person required to register' in Louisiana until he established residence . . .under former law, as under current law, defendant’s duty to register and maintain his registration for a period of 10 years did not terminate in 2005 because, as the state argue[d], it did not begin until 2009, when he established residency in this state, and he had not extinguished his obligation under the former law, much less under the current expanded registration periods, before his arrest in 2010." View "Louisiana v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the United States Supreme Court's decision in "Graham v. Florida" (130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010)), applied in a case in which the juvenile offender committed multiple offenses resulting in cumulative sentences matching or exceeding his life expectancy without the opportunity of securing early release from confinement. Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, the Louisiana Court found Graham's holding that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment forbids the imposition of life in prison without parole for juveniles committing non-homicide crimes, applied only to sentences of life in prison without parole, and did not apply to a sentence of years without the possibility of parole. Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the trial court which amended defendant's four 10-year sentences for four armed robberies. View "Louisiana v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant Timothy Bazile was indicted by a grand jury for the second degree murder of his wife, Kendra. The indictment was returned on October 13, 2010, and defendant arraigned on October 15. The district court set a trial date of October 3, 2011; notice of the trial date was given to the defendant and his counsel in open court. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial after a colloquy with the district judge. The state objected to the defendant's action, arguing the waiver of the defendant's right to a jury was made in violation of the amendment to La. Const. art. I, sec. 17(A). On the first day of trial, defense asked for a continuance on the ground the state failed to fully comply with discovery requests. The prosecutor objected to the request for continuance. Overruling the prosecutor's objection, the district court set a new trial date of October 11, 2011. Giving effect to the defendant's earlier jury trial waiver, the new trial was set to proceed before the district judge. The prosecutor again objected, arguing the defense failed to waive trial by jury within the required time limitations under the state constitution. In an attempt to overcome the state's objection, defense counsel offered to re-set trial beyond forty-five days from the earlier waiver. The prosecutor objected to this offer, arguing a continuance does not extend the forty-five day period provided by the state constitution. The prosecutor contended whenever the trial was held, the mode of trial would be a trial before a jury since the forty-five day period contemplated by the state constitution had already run before the original October 3, 2011 trial date. The district judge held a defendant had a right to waive a jury trial at any time before trial under the federal constitution; thus, the state constitutional provision which imposed limits on that right was unconstitutional. The state appealed, and was denied without comment by a vote of 2-1. The state then applied to the Supreme Court for review. After its review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded the constitutionality of La. Const. art. I, sec. 17(A) was not raised by the parties in the district court, rather, raised sua sponte by the district judge. When the matter was once more before the district court, the defendant filed a "Motion to Declare Constitutional Amendment Unconstitutional," claiming La. Const. art. I, sec. 17(A), as amended in 2010, violated the federal constitution. The Supreme Court found the district court's ruling to be erroneous, and accordingly reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Louisiana v. Bazile" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court centered on the appropriate remedy for a defendant when he is prohibited, in violation of La. C.Cr.P. art. 799.1, from using a peremptory challenge to back strike a provisionally selected juror. Agreeing with the court of appeal’s determination that the error is one which is subject to harmless error analysis, the Court nevertheless find the court of appeal misapplied the harmless error standard of review in this case. Because, after review, the Court could not conclude with certainty that the guilty verdicts rendered in this case were surely unattributable to the district court’s error in prohibiting the defendant from using a back strike to peremptorily challenge a provisionally selected juror, the Court reversed the decision of the appellate court, vacated defendant’s convictions and sentences, and remanded this matter to the district court for a new trial. View "Louisiana v. Lewis" on Justia Law

In 2008, defendant Jeremy Patterson and co-defendant Tyrone Reynolds were charged by grand jury indictment with one count of second degree murder. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to consider whether, following a district court ruling prohibiting the defendant from exercising a peremptory challenge to back strike a provisionally selected juror in violation of La. C.Cr.P. art. 799.1, the court of appeal appropriately applied a harmless error analysis to conclude that the error in denying the back strike was not harmless. Finding the court of appeal correctly applied a harmless error analysis to the facts of this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision. View "Louisiana v. Patterson" on Justia Law

In 2010, Defendant Mazen Hamdan was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The bill of information stated that defendant was previously convicted in Orleans Parish of possession of heroin and possession of methadone, which were used in the trial for the underlying weapon offense. A jury found defendant guilty as charged, and he was sentenced to serve 10 years of imprisonment at hard labor. On the day of the sentencing hearing, the state filed a habitual offender bill of information alleging that defendant’s sentence should be enhanced due to his prior guilty plea in federal court to interstate transportation of stolen property. Defendant filed a motion to quash the habitual offender bill in which he contended that the predicate offense alleged by the state had no felony equivalent in Louisiana. Defendant also alleged that the charging instrument in the federal prosecution did not indicate whether he actually possessed the stolen property or simply arranged for its transportation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to consider the criteria by which the courts of this state are to evaluate a criminal defendant’s previous conviction in a foreign jurisdiction during a habitual offender adjudication: "[w]hether a predicate offense does not necessarily include conduct criminal under Louisiana law, the conviction cannot lead to an enhanced penalty. In determining whether the predicate offense satisfies this criteria, courts are not confined to an examination of the applicable laws and the charging instrument of the foreign jurisdiction. Rather, when . . . there is information from the foreign proceeding available in the record that clearly establishes that the crime for which the defendant was convicted in a foreign jurisdiction would be a felony if committed in this state, courts are required to consider all of the available information in the record in deciding whether the foreign crime which, if committed in this state would be a felony.” The Court held that the trial court legally erred in quashing the state’s habitual offender bill. Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the appellate court, vacated the trial court’s judgment granting defendant’s motion to quash, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Louisiana v. Hadman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the court of appeal erred in ordering the return of $144,320 to Tina Beers after finding the State did not establish probable cause for forfeiture of her currency under the Seizure and Controlled Dangerous Substances Property Forfeiture Act of 1989 (the Act). Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found that the State proved there was probable cause for the forfeiture. Furthermore, the Court found that the court of appeal erred by reversing the decision of the district court to strike Tina Beers' claim to the money. The Court therefore reversed the decision of the court of appeal and reinstated the decision of the district court. View "Louisiana v. $144,320.00 Tina Beers, 132 Woody Lane, Silver City, NC 27344" on Justia Law

In 2006, a grand jury indicted Defendant Michael Garcia for first-degree murder of Matthew Millican (Matt). During his arraignment defendant pled not guilty. During trial on the merits, the presentation of the State’s case unfolded in a chronological fashion with five witnesses testifying to other unadjudicated crimes, including threats, aggravated battery, rape, and murder perpetrated by defendant while armed with a machete against victims in Michigan and Florida, followed by four witnesses who had exclusive knowledge of Matt’s murder. Thereafter, the defense called four guilt phase witnesses and then rested. After hearing closing arguments, receiving the District Court’s instructions, and deliberating defendant’s guilt for eleven minutes, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of first-degree murder. After trial on the penalty phase, the jury unanimously returned a verdict of death. The District Court denied defendant’s motion for new trial and sentenced defendant to death in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Defendant directly appealed his conviction and death sentence, raising eighty-five assignments of error. The Supreme Court addressed the "most significant" errors in its opinion, and the remaining errors were addressed in an unpublished appendix. After a thorough review of the law and the evidence, the Court affirmed defendant’s first-degree murder conviction and the imposition of the death sentence. View "Louisiana v. Garcia" on Justia Law

This criminal matter presented the res nova issue of whether a second arrest without a conviction for the charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated (DWI) constitutes "a second violation of R.S. 14:98," which triggers the provisions of La. Rev. Stat. 32:667(I)(1)(a) (mandating the installation of an ignition interlock for the accused's refusal to submit to a chemical breath test following his arrest.) Plaintiff's license was suspended as a result of his refusal to take a breath test after his second arrest for DWI. When plaintiff was acquitted of this second DWI charge, he filed a rule to show cause why his license should not be immediately reinstated. Defendant-in-rule, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles (OMV), agreed plaintiff was entitled to have his license reinstated, but contended an ignition interlock device must be installed on his vehicle under La. Rev. Stat. 32:667(I)(1)(a) because of his refusal to submit to chemical testing after being arrested a second time for DWI. The District Court reinstated plaintiff's license without requiring an ignition interlock device, and the court of appeal affirmed, interpreting 'a second violation" as requiring a prior conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the second arrest on the charge of DWI was merely an allegation of a second violation, and did not constitute "a second violation of R.S. 14:98" in and of itself. The Court affirmed the lower courts' judgments reinstating plaintiff's license without restriction. View "Boudreaux v. Louisiana Dept. of Pub. Safety & Corr." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether defendant could be guilty of second degree murder for leaving her two small children home alone in the middle of the night, during which time a fire broke out and one of her children died in the fire. After reviewing the facts and the applicable law, the Court found that a conviction for second degree murder could not be supported where defendant’s criminally negligent act of leaving her young children alone in the middle of the night was not a "direct act" of killing, but was instead a criminally negligent act of lack of supervision which resulted in death. For that reason, the Court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of negligent homicide. View "Louisiana v. Small" on Justia Law