Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2015, fishermen in Cocodrie, Louisiana noticed a large Rubbermaid tote floating near a dock. The next day, they called the police after they spotted clothing and a human arm sticking out of it. Inside the tote, police found a decomposing body, which was later identified as Robbie Coulon, the victim and a lifelong friend of defendant Simon Quinn. The victim lived in defendant’s Houma apartment, in apparent violation of the rental agreement. Friction between the two developed as the victim repeatedly ignored defendant’s instructions to refrain from doing anything that could draw the attention of the property manager to the victim’s unauthorized presence. In addition, the victim pawned some of defendant’s belongings, including an Xbox belonging to defendant’s son. Defendant would ultimately be indicted for the second degree murder of Coulon, and for obstruction of justice by tampering with evidence of Coulon’s murder. A jury found defendant guilty as charged; he was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without eligibility for parole (for murder), and a consecutive term to 50 years imprisonment for second-felony offender obstruction of justice. A divided court of appeal reversed the conviction for second degree murder and affirmed the conviction for obstruction. Defendant appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the court of appeal, which reversed defendant’s conviction for second degree murder, and affirmed defendant’s conviction for obstruction of justice, his habitual offender adjudication, and his sentence for obstruction. View "Louisiana v. Quinn" on Justia Law

Defendant Keddrick Kennon was convicted by jury of distribution of cocaine and possession of cocaine. The district court sentenced defendant to serve two terms of imprisonment at hard labor: 30 years and five years, to run consecutively. The court of appeal affirmed the convictions and sentences (as amended to reflect that the first two years of the 30-year sentence for distribution of cocaine were to be served without parole eligibility). Thereafter, the State filed a habitual offender bill of information, alleging that defendant was a fourth-felony offender with predicate felony convictions for distribution of cocaine, possession of cocaine, and attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Defendant admitted he was a second-felony offender (based on the attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute predicate) and received an agreed-upon sentence of 60 years imprisonment at hard labor. The district court, however, had vacated both sentences before it imposed the 60-year sentence. Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the district court denied. Because defendant received a single 60-year sentence despite being convicted of two crimes, the court of appeal granted defendant’s application for supervisory writs. The court of appeal then vacated the habitual offender sentence and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the trial court reimposed the originally agreed-upon sentence of 60 years imprisonment at hard labor as a second-felony offender for distribution of cocaine. The district court also sentenced defendant to a concurrent term of five years imprisonment at hard labor for the possession of cocaine conviction. The court of appeal affirmed the sentences. On appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, defendant argued his 60-year habitual offender sentence was reviewable despite it being imposed originally pursuant to a plea agreement, and that it was excessive in violation of the prohibition against cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment contained in La. Const. Art. 1, section 20. The Supreme Court found the 60-year sentence was both reviewable and excessive, and therefore set it aside. However, because the sentence was negotiated as part of a plea agreement in which defendant admitted his status as a second-felony offender, the Court also set aside the habitual offender adjudication, restored the parties to the status quo ante by reinstating the unenhanced sentences (30 years and 5 years, to run consecutively) that were affirmed as amended in Kennon-1, and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. View "Louisiana v. Kennon" on Justia Law

Defendant Robert Ricard, Jr. was indicted on two counts of the aggravated rape of his niece, K.M., then aged 12. Defendant regularly babysat K.M. and her siblings in exchange for lodging in the home of his sister’s family. At trial, defendant’s younger sister (who was not the mother of K.M.), age 25, testified that defendant had raped her several times when she was 10 years old but that she did not reveal the abuse to her older sister, K.M.’s mother, until she heard the allegations that defendant raped K.M. The jury acquitted defendant of one count of aggravated rape, and found him guilty of the lesser offense of molestation of a juvenile, in response to the second count of aggravated rape. The charged offenses carried a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility. The jury was instructed that 10 of 12 jurors must agree to reach a verdict. Upon the jury’s return to the courtroom, however, the judge misspoke and asked whether nine jurors concurred in the responsive verdict, but the jury was not polled. Despite being instructed that sentencing is not the function of the jury but rather is the duty and responsibility of the judge, the jury was also informed of the sentencing range for each lesser responsive crime. Unfortunately, the court misinformed the jury that the sentencing range for molestation of a juvenile is five to 20 years imprisonment, when in fact the correct sentence for that crime is much greater because of the victim's age. Defendant did not object to the jury instructions and did not bring the error to the district court’s attention until sentencing when the State objected to the leniency of the 20-year sentence that the court initially imposed. The State subsequently filed a habitual offender bill of information alleging that defendant was a third-felony habitual offender. After negotiations, however, defendant accepted the State’s offer to waive the mandatory minimum sentence of 66 years. The court of appeal affirmed the conviction, habitual offender adjudication, and sentence. Defendant’s timely application for post-conviction relief was denied by the district court. Finding no reversible error, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed denial of relief on collateral review. View "Louisiana v. Ricard" on Justia Law

In June 2016, defendant Jason Michael drove his truck into a smaller vehicle on Louisiana Highway 44 in Ascension Parish and then fled the scene of the accident. He was found by police a few miles away. His vehicle was heavily damaged, and its debris was found at the scene of the crash. In addition to defendant, two other people were injured in the crash: Bree Lavigne and her minor son Lucas. The State charged defendant with two counts of first degree vehicular negligent injury, one count of hit-and-run driving, and one count of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Defendant moved to suppress the BAC results, alleging that the trooper misinformed him that under La. R.S. 32:666 he could not refuse the blood test because serious injury resulted from the crash and that defendant’s consent was therefore coerced. The district court denied the motion to suppress after a hearing. Defendant unsuccessfully sought supervisory review from the court of appeal. He appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, contending the BAD blood draw had to be suppressed because he consented only after being threatened with criminal consequences if he refused. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless BAC blood test. View "Louisiana v. Michael" on Justia Law

This matter arose from alleged violations of the Health Care Consumer Billing and Disclosure Protection Act (“Balance Billing Act” or “Act”). The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari review to resolve the question of whether a patient’s claims against a contracted healthcare provider for an alleged violation of La. R.S. 22:1874(A)(1) were delictual in nature. The consolidated lawsuits in this matter were filed by Matthew DePhillips and Earnest Williams, individually and on behalf of putative classes, against Hospital District No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish d/b/a North Oaks Medical Center/North Oaks Health System (“North Oaks”). In February, 2011, Williams was injured in a motor vehicle accident. He sought emergency medical treatment from North Oaks. At the time of the accident, Williams was insured under an insurance policy administered by Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana (“BCBS”). North Oaks is a contracted healthcare provider with BCBS pursuant to a certain Member Provider Agreement (the “MPA”) between North Oaks and BCBS. After Williams’ treatment, North Oaks filed a claim with BCBS, and BCBS paid a discounted rate on the claims as provided by the MPA. Thereafter, North Oaks sought to collect from Williams by filing a medical lien against his liability insurance claim for the full and undiscounted charges. Williams alleged that North Oaks filed this lien despite being a contracted healthcare provider with BCBS and despite its legal and contractual requirements to accept the insurance as payment in full. The trial court denied the exceptions of no right of action for breach of contract and prescription, but granted the North Oaks’ exception of no cause of action for claims arising before the effective date of the Balance Billing Act. The court of appeal granted writs in part, finding DePhillips did not have a right of action to assert a claim for breach of the MPA, as he was neither a party nor a third-party beneficiary to that agreement. The appellate court denied North Oaks’ writ application insofar as it related to the trial court’s denial of its exception of prescription. After review, the Supreme Court determined plaintiff's claims were delictual in nature, subject a one-year prescriptive period. View "DePhillips v. Hospital Service Dist. No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish d/b/a North Oaks Medical Center et al." on Justia Law

Derrick Harris was serving a life sentence pursuant to Louisiana's Habitual Offender law. The issue presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court's review centered on whether Harris could claim ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing on post-conviction review. Given the fundamental right involved, after a review of the record, the Court held Harris' ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing claim was cognizable on collateral review. Thus, the Court granted the relator’s writ, in part, and remanded the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to consider his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. View "Louisiana v. Harris" on Justia Law

In 2018, the target of a grand jury investigation was charged by Bill of Information with one count of molestation of a juvenile, a violation of La. R.S. 14:81.2, arising from an incident in 2003 in which he allegedly molested his children’s babysitter. The target was subsequently arrested and pled not guilty. In conjunction with the grand jury proceeding, the state issued a subpoena to the target’s wife, to appear before the grand jury. The wife filed an “Affidavit of Spouse” wherein she asserted “her lawful privilege to refuse to give evidence in any criminal proceeding against her husband, pursuant to Louisiana Code of Evidence article 505.” The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review of this matter to determine whether the spousal witness privilege in Article 505 could be invoked in a grand jury proceeding investigating the molestation of a juvenile. Because the grand jury proceeding involved an allegation and investigation of the sexual abuse of a child, the Court found the spousal privilege was abrogated by Ls. R.S. 14:403(B). The Court reversed the district court, which found the spousal privilege applied. View "In re: Grand Jury Subpoena" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court's review stemmed from a class action suit relating to plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims against the State, and whether those claims were prescribed under La. R.S. 13:5111 and/or 28 U.S.C. 2501. In 2006, plaintiffs Steve Crooks and Era Lea Crooks filed a “Class Action Petition to Fix Boundary, For Damages and For Declaration [sic] Judgment.” The Crookses alleged that they represented a class of landowners in the Catahoula Basin whose property is affected by the increased water levels from a congressionally-approved navigation project authorized under the River and Harbor Act of 1960 to promote navigation on the Ouachita and Black Rivers. In conjunction with that project, the State of Louisiana signed an “Act of Assurances,” which obligated the State to provide the federal government with all lands and property interests necessary to the project free of charge, and to indemnify the federal government from any damages resulting from the project. Ultimately, the trial court certified the plaintiffs as one class, but subdivided that class into two groups – the “Lake Plaintiffs” and the “Swamp Plaintiffs” – depending on the location of the properties affected. The lower courts relied on the decision in Cooper v. Louisiana Department of Public Works, 870 So. 2d 315 (2004) to conclude the one-year prescriptive period for damage to immovable property found in La. C.C. art. 3493 governed and the continuing tort doctrine applied to prevent the running of prescription on the plaintiffs’ claims. The Supreme Court determined the lower courts erred in relying on Cooper and held that the three-year prescriptive period for actions for compensation for property taken by the state set forth in La. R. S. 13:5111 governed, and plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claims were prescribed. View "Crooks v. Louisiana Dept. of Nat. Resources" on Justia Law

Mariah Charles was born prematurely in October 2014 at Lafayette General Medical Center (LGMC) and hospitalized there until transferred to Women’s and Children’s Hospital of Lafayette (W&C). She was released in April 2015 release. Dr. Geeta Dalal, a pediatric cardiologist with clinical privileges at both hospitals, contributed to Mariah’s care during and after Mariah’s hospitalization. While Mariah remained at LGMC, Dr. Dalal ordered and interpreted eight echocardiograms that, according to the petition, revealed abnormal findings that could cause pulmonary artery hypertension. The petition alleged Dr. Dalal took no action other than ordering additional echocardiograms. After Mariah’s transfer to W&C, Dr. Dalal interpreted three more echocardiograms, again noted abnormalities, and allegedly failed to properly diagnose or treat Mariah. On May 8, Mariah was admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit at W&C and examined by another pediatric cardiologist who diagnosed pulmonary artery hypertension. Mariah was transferred by helicopter to Children’s Hospital of New Orleans where medical staff confirmed the diagnosis and performed a heart catheterization procedure. Mariah’s mother, Megan Thomas (Thomas), initiated Medical Review Panel proceedings with the Patient’s Compensation Fund against Dr. Dalal and the hospital defendants, alleging medical malpractice and seeking damages for their alleged failure to properly diagnose and treat Mariah. In addition to the Medical Review Panel proceedings, Thomas filed suit against the hospitals: The Regional Health System of Acadiana, LLC, Women’s & Children’s Hospital, Inc., HCA Holdings, Inc. W&C, and LGMC. The issue presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court's review centered on allegations of negligent credentialing against Dr. Dalal, and whether those allegations fell within the scope of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act, or alternatively, sounded in general negligence. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, and reinstated the trial court's judgment sustaining the hospital defendants' exceptions of prematurity. View "Thomas v. Regional Health System of Acadiana, LLC." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal granted summary judgment to plaintiff St. Charles Gaming Company d/b/a Isle of Capri Casino Lake Charles ("Grand Palais"), holding the casino was a :vessel" for the purposes of general maritime law. The decision contradicted Benoit v. St. Charles Gaming Company, LLC, 233 So. 3d 615, cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 104 (2018), which held the Grand Palais was not a vessel. Plaintiff Don Caldwell worked for Grand Palais Riverboat, LLC, and was injured when the gangway attached to the riverboat malfunctioned and collapsed. Plaintiff petitioned for damages, alleging the Grand Palais was a vessel under general maritime law, and that he was a seaman under the Jones Act at the time of the accident. After a de novo review of the record, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded the Grand Palais was a not vessel under general maritime law. Therefore, it reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s suit. View "Caldwell v. St. Charles Gaming Company" on Justia Law