Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case involved the Court's appellate jurisdiction over cases in which a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional by the trial court. The district court declared Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 496 unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution, and Article I Section 5 of the state constitution. In October 2010, the State brought charges against Defendant Larry Rochon, alleging he committed theft over $500. The charges were brought by a bill of information; Defendant had not been arrested and may have been unaware of the state's action. When Defendant failed to appear at the arraignment, pursuant to article 496, the state sought a warrant for his arrest. A public defender assigned to Defendant's case challenged the warrant for lack of probable cause. In January 2011, Defendant appeared in court for the first time and received notice of his arraignment. At a subsequent hearing, the district court found no probable cause for the arrest. Later that year, the parties appeared for trial, but the state entered a nolle prosequi, notifying Defendant of the potential for reinstatement of the charge. The state filed a motion to dismiss the appeal which was ultimately denied by the Supreme Court in September 2011. After careful review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court held that article 496 "must be read 'in pari materia' with La.C.Cr.P. article 202, such that a warrant may not issue on a bill of information unless an affidavit filed with the information shows probable cause for the arrest." The Court found that the district court erred in finding article 496 unconstitutional. View "Louisiana v. Rochon" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court on appeal was whether the Defendant Terrance Martin was "seized" when a police officer asked for his identification in order to check for outstanding warrants, then asked Defendant if he had anything illegal on his person while retaining the identification. Upon review of "the scant facts presented here," the Supreme Court found that there was nothing in the conduct of the officer which "decisively changed the consensual nature" of the officer's encounter with Defendant such that the Fourth Amendment protections were violated. Accordingly, the Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the drugs which he admitted having on his person. View "Louisiana v. Martin" on Justia Law

In 2006, Defendant Felton Dorsey and Randy Wilson were indicted by a Caddo Parish grand jury for the first degree murder of Joe Prock and attempted first degree murder of Bobbie Prock. The state subsequently dismissed the latter charge against both by amendment. A few months later, the State gave notice of its intention to seek the death penalty at Defendant's trial, alleging five aggravating factors. In 2009, the State filed an amended notice of intent to seek the death penalty, reducing the alleged aggravating factors to: (1) Defendant was engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated arson, aggravated escape, armed robbery or simple robbery; (2) Defendant knowingly created a risk of death or bodily harm to more than one person; and (3) Defendant offered, has been offered, has given, or has received anything of value for the commission of the offense. In his appeal, Defendant asserted twenty-six assignments of error from trial. After a thorough review of the law and evidence, the Supreme Court found none of the assignments of error constituted reversible error and therefore, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "Louisiana v. Dorsey" on Justia Law

Defendant Todd Jones made a graphic sexual request of a teenage boy. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Defendant’s conduct was sufficient to constitute attempted indecent behavior with a juvenile. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Court found that in the specific context of this crime, the request was an "act" committed "for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object" such that the attempt statute, La. R.S. 14:27, is satisfied. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and reinstated the jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of attempted indecent behavior with a juvenile. View "Louisiana v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the district court erred in declaring La. R.S. 15:560 et seq. unconstitutional. Defendants Bryan Golston, Paul Baker, Calvin Watson, Lloyd Dell and Reginald Jackson were soon-to-be-released sex offenders who had undergone the Sex Offender Assessment Panel (SOAP) process pursuant to La. R.S. 15:560 et seq. The district court found that the law was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the Defendants. Upon careful consideration of the legislative history of the SOAP process, the Supreme Court found the law to be a regulatory rather than criminal statutory scheme, and not subject to a void-for-vagueness analysis. Furthermore, even after applying a due process analysis, the Court found no violations. Accordingly, the Court reversed the lower court in each of the Defendants' cases and remanded the cases for further proceedings. View "Louisiana v. Golston" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant John Mathieu with second degree kidnapping after an incident which Defendant, armed with a gun, confronted his ex-wife in a parking lot at her place of employment, forced her into her car and made her drive out of state. After a trial by jury, Defendant was found guilty as charged. Defendant conducted portions of the trial in his own right, including the cross-examination of his ex-wife and other State witnesses, which his court-appointed attorney conducted jury selection and other portions of the trial. Defendant was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment at hard labor with the first two years without probation or parole. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit conditionally affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, but remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Defendant made a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself and whether the judge made sufficient inquiries into Defendant's competency to waive counsel and represent himself. Upon review of the trial record, the Supreme Court found that nothing in the record suggested that Defendant was not capable of choosing his "hybrid" representation knowingly and voluntarily. The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "Louisiana v. Mathieu" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant Mervin White with driving while intoxicated. After a trial by jury in 2008, he was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment at hard labor without opportunity for probation or parole. The appellate court affirmed Defendant's conviction, but vacated his sentence as excessive and reduced it to a term of ten years. The State appealed, arguing that the evidence supported Defendant's 20-year sentence. Upon review of the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found that though Defendant's sentence fell within the upper range of sentences, it did not suggest an arbitrary departure "from a sentencing norm that might indicate disproportionate punishment." Accordingly, the Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated Defendant's 20-year sentence. View "Louisiana v. White" on Justia Law

A New Orleans bank robbery in 1984 ended with the death of a Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's deputy. A unanimous jury found Defendant Thomas Sparks, Jr. guilty of first-degree murder in the deputy's death. At the penalty phase of the trial, the jury unanimously returned a death sentence. Defendant raised twenty-three assignments of error on appeal. After a thorough review of the law and evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's murder conviction, and conditionally affirmed the imposition of the death sentence. The Court remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on whether Defendant received effective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.