Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Terrance Carter was indicted in 2006 for the first degree murder of Corinthian Houston. After initially pleading not guilty, Defendant changed his plea to a dual plea of not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. The district court denied his motion to suppress his statements following a hearing conducted in 2008. After finding aggravating circumstances of aggravated kidnapping, second degree kidnapping, aggravated arson, and a victim under the age of 12 years, the jury returned with a unanimous recommendation that Defendant be sentenced to death. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence of death, asserting twenty-five assignments of error and three supplemental assignments of error. The Supreme Court addressed the "most significant" of the alleged errors. After a thorough review of the law and the evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's first-degree murder conviction and the imposition of the death sentence. View "Louisiana v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the court of appeal erred in finding that the amendments to the state sex offender registration statutes did not apply to Defendant Jimmy Smith, because application of those amended statutes would violate the prohibition set forth in the ex post facto clause of the state and federal constitutions. Defendant was convicted of two sex offenses prior to the enactment of the amendments to the sex offender registration statutes but before his initial registration period had expired. The amendments at issue increased the duration an offender is obligated to register and created a new requirement for sex offender designation codes on drivers' licenses and identification cards. The court of appeal found the 1999 amendment to former La. Rev. Stat. 15:542.1(H) (providing for a lifetime requirement to register for multiple offenders, did not apply to persons convicted of a sex offense prior to July 1997) and that the restriction code to be placed on an offender's driver's license or identification card requirements added by the legislature in 2006 did not apply to Defendant in this case. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the 1999 amendment to former La. Rev. Stat. 15:542.1 applied to Defendant as a multiple sexual offender. Furthermore, the Court found no violation of the ex post facto clause in the application of the sex offender registration statutes to Defendant. The Court reversed the ruling of the court of appeal, and reinstated the district court's judgment denying Defendant's petition for injunctive and declaratory relief and ordering him to register as a lifetime sex offender. View "Smith v. Louisiana" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the district court erred in sua sponte declaring that the jury waiver procedure described in the Louisiana Constitution (Article 1, section 17A) was unconstitutional for "depriving [Defendant] of his due process guaranteed under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution." Defendant Timothy Bazile was indicted for second degree murder. His trial was set for October, 2011. At a September hearing, Defendant indicated he wished to waive his right to a jury trial, and the State objected. The State argued that Defendant's waiver was less than forty-five days from the trial date, and pressed to continue with a jury trial. The district court expressed doubt as to whether the federal constitution allowed the State to tell a defendant he couldn't have a jury trial "even on the day it's set for trial." Defense ultimately asked for a continuance, and a bench trial was reset for a few days later than the original trial date. The court found that La. Const. art. I, sec. 17(A) "effectively allowed the state to 'force' a defendant into deciding whether to be tried by a judge or jury. However, 'the decision to have a bench trial or jury trial rests with the defendant." The State appealed the district court's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because the constitutionality of the jury waiver procedure was never raised by Defendant, the Court found that the district court erred in declaring the jury waiver procedure unconstitutional. View "Louisiana v. Basile" on Justia Law

Claimant Jerry Benoit worked for Turner Industries for twenty-seven years. For ten of those years he worked as a general laborer for a Lake Charles Citgo refinery, where Turner was contracted to perform general maintenance. Claimant's duties included cleaning chemical discharges and oily waste which collected in the drainage ditches, sewers, and processing units at the refinery. In the course of this work, he was exposed to any number of potentially dangerous or carcinogenic chemicals, including high levels of benzene. In July 2006, Claimant fell ill. He was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), known to be linked to high levels of benzene exposure. Despite the medical evidence linking Claimant's cancer to the chemicals he was exposed to at work, his claim for medical benefits was denied. The eventual medical bills totaled over $625,000. Medicaid paid for $203,124.68. The remaining $422,043.59 was "written off" by the medical care providers. Turner paid nothing. Claimant's family filed suit in 2007. The Office of Workers' Compensation (OWC) awarded Claimant total medical expenses and attorney fees. Turner appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the OWC judgment in its entirety. Upon review of the correctness of the OWC award of medical expenses, the Supreme Court concluded the OWC erred in awarding the "written off" medical expenses: "Claimant would receive an improper windfall if he was allowed to recover for medical expenses which have been reduced by health care providers as a result of their contractual arrangements with Medicaid." The Court reversed the appellate court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Benoit v. Turner Industries Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Class Representatives sought summary judgment in favor of numerous others similarly situated arising out of the failure of Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (Citizens) to timely initiate loss adjustment on the enumerated members' insurance claims. The District Court granted summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor and awarded penalties for each compensable claim, totaling $92,865,000. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding a factual determination of whether the insurer breached its duty of good faith was required before assessing penalties. This litigation presented two issues of first impression for the Supreme Court: (1) whether an insurer is subject to the penalties imposed by former La. Rev. Stat. 22:658(A)(3) for its untimely initiation of loss adjustment in the absence of a showing of bad faith; and (2) whether the provisions of former La. Rev. Stat. 22:1220(C) capped those penalties at five thousand dollars when damages were not proven. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the plain language of La. Rev. Stat. 22:2658(A)(3) does not require a showing of bad faith by the insurer, but simply requires proof of notice and inaction for over thirty days. Furthermore, the Court found that the provisions of La. Rev. Stat. 22:1220(C) capped the penalties for such inaction at five thousand dollars when damages are not proven. Finding no error in the district court's award of the statutory cap for each failure to timely initiate, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and reinstated the district court's judgment. View "Oubre v. Louisiana Fair Citizens Plan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ application to determine whether a school board had tort liability for expelling a high school student after a fifth-sized bottle of whiskey fell from the student's backpack and broke on the classroom floor. The student claimed he was denied due process in the disciplinary proceedings that resulted in his expulsion. The district court agreed and awarded the student $50,000. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the student presented no evidence whatsoever of being denied due process at the school board hearing. Finding the student failed to carry his burden of proof to show a denial of due process by the school board, the Court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Christy v. McCalla" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether scheduling a discovery conference pursuant to Rule 10.1 of the Rules for Louisiana District Courts constitutes a "step" in the prosecution or defense of an action sufficient to prevent abandonment of the action under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 561. After Plaintiff Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) failed to timely respond to discovery requests, Defendant Oilfield Heavy Haulers, L.L.C. (OHH) sent a letter to DOTD requesting a Rule 10.1 discovery conference. Subsequently, DOTD served its discovery responses on OHH, but neglected to serve the other defendants. No formal action occurred in the case until April 22, 2010, when the District Court granted defendants’ ex parte motion for an order of dismissal on the basis of abandonment. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding DOTD's discovery responses and OHH's letter did not constitute "steps" in the prosecution or defense of the action. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the correctness vel non of the appellate court's decision. The Court found that scheduling a Rule 10.1 conference constitutes a "step" in the prosecution or defense of an action sufficient to interrupt abandonment. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand to the District Court for further proceedings. View "Louisiana Dept. of Transport. & Dev. v. Oilfield Heavy Haulers, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2006, a Morehouse Parish grand jury indicted Defendant Lee Roy Odenbaugh, Jr., for the 2006 first degree murders of Jessie Mae Porter and Sondra Porter Odenbaugh and attempted first degree murder of Jessica Cooper. After the penalty phase, the jury unanimously recommended a sentence of death for each first degree murder count, finding Defendant knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person. Defendant appealed his conviction and death sentence on the basis of thirty-six assignments of error. After careful review of all of Defendant's arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence. View "Louisiana v. Odenbaugh" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Anthony Wright was convicted by a jury of aggravated incest and sentenced to eighteen years imprisonment at hard labor. Finding the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence which was inadmissible pursuant to Louisiana Code of Evidence article 412.2, and in denying the Defendant's related motions for mistrial, the court of appeal reversed the conviction, vacated the sentence and remanded the matter for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted the State's writ application to review the correctness of the court of appeal's decision. Upon review, the Court vacated the decision of the court of appeal, and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to allow evidence of the alleged victim's age to be submitted to the jury. Because the court of appeal found the admission of other crimes evidence constituted reversible error, it did not address defendant’s remaining assignment of error. View "Louisiana v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this lawsuit to determine whether the lower courts correctly applied the standards for analyzing class action certification set forth in La. C.C.P. arts. 591, et seq. In February 2003, five individuals residing and owning property in Alexandria, Louisiana, in the vicinity of the Dura-Wood Treating Company, filed on their own behalf and as representatives of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of operations at the wood-treating facility, a "Class Action Petition for Damages." The petition, which was amended several times, alleged that the Dura-Wood facility was primarily engaged in the production of creosote-treated railroad ties, and that significant quantities of creosote sludge were deposited into the canal and ponds. The appellate court ultimately found no reversible error in the district court’s judgment certifying the class, although it candidly acknowledged “a number of potential problems with the class as it had been defined." After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court found the lower courts erred in concluding that common questions of law or fact existed, that questions of law or fact common to members of the class predominated over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action was superior to other available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of this matter. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the district court which granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. View "Price v. Martin" on Justia Law