Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in consolidated cases was the correctness of administrative decisions issued by the Louisiana Tax Commission (“Commission”) on review of the valuations, for the 2014 and 2015 tax years, by the Orleans Parish Tax Assessor (“Assessor”) of a low-income housing development, owned by Opportunity Homes Limited Partnership (“Opportunity Homes”), for purposes of assessment of ad valorem taxes. The Commission ruled in favor of Opportunity Homes for both tax years. The administrative decisions were upheld by the district court but reversed by the appellate court. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the assessment values as determined by the Commission. The Court found no conflict between La. R.S. 47:2323, providing parish assessors a choice of three generally recognized appraisal methods to utilize to determine fair market value (the market approach, the cost approach, and/or the income approach), and La. Admin. Code, Title 61, Part V, sec. 303(C), which recommended the use of the income approach for assessing affordable rental housing, such as the Opportunity Homes LIHTC development. The Supreme Court found this case turned purely on the facts established before the Commission, proving that the income approach was the more appropriate method for determining fair market value in this case. Consequently, the appellate court erred in holding that the Commission’s decisions were in violation of statutory provisions, in excess of its authority, based upon unlawful procedures, and legally incorrect. View "Williams v. Opportunity Homes Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

The United States Supreme Court remanded this case back to the Louisiana Supreme Court, vacating the Louisiana Court’s decision relating to defendant Rogers Lacaze’s petition for post-conviction relief. On remand, the Louisiana Court was instructed to consider whether the trial judge’s recusal should have been required because “objectively speaking, ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable’” under the circumstances. After carefully considering all the facts, the Louisiana Supreme Court found defendant did not show that the circumstances created an unconstitutionally high risk of bias, and the original denial of the defendant’s recusal claim in Louisiana v. LaCaze, 16-0234 (La. 12/16/16), 208 So.3d 856, was correct. View "Louisiana v. Lacaze" on Justia Law

Defendant Larry Broussard, Jr. was convicted of aggravated flight from an officer. During voir dire, defense counsel challenged, pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, the state’s use of a backstrike against an African-American female prospective juror from the first panel. Specifically, defense counsel noted that the state had not previously challenged this prospective juror for cause and stated without further elaboration that “it seems like she’s one of two potential black jurors.” In response to the trial court’s request for a race-neutral reason for the backstrike, the state ultimately gave two: (1) the prospective juror’s occupation as a housekeeper; and (2) she was not intelligent enough to be a juror. After the trial court resoundingly rejected the state’s characterization of the prospective juror’s intelligence, the state then claimed she was inattentive during the questioning of the second panel. In a split-panel decision, the court of appeal reversed, with the majority finding a Batson violation in the state’s exclusion of the backstruck prospective juror, and thereby deeming a second assignment of error moot. The court of appeal vacated the conviction and sentence and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The state contended the court of appeal erred in failing to recognize that defendant was never required to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination in Batson’s first step. The state also contended that, even if a prima facie showing was made, both of its reasons for backstriking the prospective juror were racially neutral, and the trial court never found that they were pretexts for purposeful discrimination. Therefore, the state claims that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Batson challenge. The Louisiana Supreme Court disagreed: “While we are mindful that a trial court’s determination as to purposeful discrimination rests largely on credibility evaluations and is therefore entitled to great deference, we note that the trial court rejected the state’s first proffered reason and we cannot presume the trial court accepted the state’s demeanor-based proffered reason. Therefore, we find that the court of appeal correctly applied ‘Snyder’ [Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2010)] to vacate the conviction and sentence and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.” The court of appeal’s decision was affirmed. View "Louisiana v. Broussard" on Justia Law

Codefendants Darryl Jones, Cecil Beals, and Calvin Williams were indicted, tried together, and found guilty of the second degree murder of their associate Gerald Wilkins. The evidence presented at trial established that Beals, Williams, and the victim regularly visited defendant Darryl Jones’s home in Baton Rouge. Beals lived in defendant’s garage. Notably, all were present there on the day and evening before Wilkins was killed. Wilkins was found alongside Panama Road in Sorrento, dead, with two gunshot wounds to the head. The victim was holding a crack pipe and appeared to have been shot while he was urinating. A witness heard the gunshots and saw a distinctive vehicle (like that owned by defendant and often used by Beals) speeding down Panama Road between 3:30 and 4:00 a.m. on January 12, 2013. Officers obtained surveillance video showing Beals at a gas station near the crime scene with defendant’s vehicle at 3:38 a.m. The surveillance video also showed an unidentified driver and an unidentified backseat passenger. The court of appeal found this evidence sufficient to prove that defendant Jones was a principal to the murder although he was not present at the time of the murder. The appellate panel’s dissent found the circumstantial evidence presented at trial was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Defendant appealed, and the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed. Here, as the dissent found, “[t]he record is void of evidence that [defendant] gave any counsel to Beals or Williams, directly or indirectly, in the commission of the crime. Based on the evidence presented, the jury could only speculate defendant was guilty as a principal.” View "Louisiana v. Jones" on Justia Law

Relator John Esteen, along with 22 others, was charged with several drug and racketeering offenses committed in 1998 and 1999. Relator was ultimately found guilty of two counts of possession of cocaine over 400 grams, conspiracy to possess cocaine over 400 grams, and attempted possession of cocaine over 400 grams. The district court sentenced him to consecutive terms of imprisonment at hard labor totaling 150 years. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. In 2016, relator filed a motion to correct illegal sentences seeking the benefit of more lenient penalty provisions that were enacted by the Louisiana Legislature in 2001, La. Acts 403 (effective June 15, 2001). The legislature later declared La.R.S. 15:308(B) (effective May 16, 2006) would “apply to the class of persons who committed crimes, who were convicted, or who were sentenced” in accordance with enumerated provisions, including those pursuant to which relator was sentenced on three counts. The district court denied the motion and the court of appeal denied writs, relying on Louisiana v. Dick, 951 So.2d 124. On appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, Relator contended that La.R.S. 15:308(A) and (B), as revised by the legislature, rendered his sentences for possession of cocaine over 400 grams and attempted possession of cocaine over 400 grams illegal. The Supreme Court found that a more lenient penalty provision applied retroactively in accordance with La.R.S. 15:308(B), and relator’s remedy was by resentencing in the district court pursuant to his motion to correct illegal sentences. Accordingly, his sentence was vacated, and the matter remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "Louisiana ex rel. John Esteen v. Louisiana" on Justia Law

Although the Louisiana Constitution generally restricts the government from expropriating private property, it provides broad exceptions for public port authorities. The Constitution provides that the government can expropriate property for “[p]ublic ports . . . to facilitate the transport of goods or persons in domestic or international commerce.” The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review in this matter to determine whether St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal District’s (the “Port”) expropriation of property owned by Violet Dock Port, Inc., L.L.C. (“Violet”) on the Mississippi River satisfied the “public purpose” requirement of art. I, section 4(B)(1) of the Louisiana Constitution and, further, whether it violated the business enterprise clause of art. I, section 4(B)(6). The Court found the record demonstrated that the Port’s expropriation was for the public purpose “to facilitate the transport of goods or persons in domestic or international commerce” and not for the constitutionally prohibited purpose of operating Violet’s enterprise or halting competition with a government enterprise. Therefore, the Court affirmed the court of appeal’s judgment that the expropriation was constitutional. However, the Supreme Court also found the trial court made a legal error in setting the just compensation due to Violet under art. I, section 4(B)(1), and further found the court of appeal failed to correct that error. This case was remanded to the court of appeal solely for the purpose of fixing the amount of just compensation based on the evidence in the record and in accordance with the principles discussed by the Supreme Court in this opinion. View "St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal Dist. v. Violet Dock Port, Inc." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Louisiana Supreme Court’s review centered on the constitutionality of La. R.S. 32:667, particularly paragraphs La. R.S. 32:667 (H)(3) and (I)(1)(a). Plaintiff David Carver was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) pursuant to La. R.S. 14:98. Plaintiff refused to submit to a chemical test for intoxication and his license was suspended for 180 days. The arrest did not result in a conviction, as Plaintiff participated in a pre-trial diversion program. Plaintiff alleged La. R.S. 32:667 (H)(3) and (I)(1)(a) violated the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions. Following the District Court’s finding that the paragraphs violated the Due Process Clauses, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles (the State) directly appealed that finding to the Supreme Court. After review, the Supreme Court found that the applicable paragraphs did not violate the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions. Thus, the Court reversed the District Court’s judgment of unconstitutionality and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Carver v. Louisiana Dept. of Pub. Safety" on Justia Law

Acting pro se, defendant Reggie Thibodeaux was charged with several delony and misdemeanor drug offenses as well as with resisting arrest, moved to suppress the evidence. Defendant was represented by counsel; the trial court denied his pro se motion because he was represented by counsel. Defendant filed additional pro se motions, each was denied by the trial court. Still acting pro se, defendant appealed to the court of appeal seeking review, inter alia, of the denial of his motion to suppress. The court of appeal granted the application in part and directed the trial court to conduct a hearing to afford defense counsel an opportunity to adopt the motion. Citing Louisiana v. Melon, 95-2209 (La. 9/22/95), 660 So.2d 466, the court of appeal found that “[l]ower courts are required to accept and consider pro se filings from represented defendants in a preverdict context whenever doing so will not lead to confusion at trial.” The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and remanded for the trial court to determine whether defense counsel wished to adopt defendant's pro se motion to suppress, and if not, evaluate its disruptive potential in light of Melon before determining whether to conduct a hearing consistent with Louisiana v. Alexander, 07-1236 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/9/08), 980 So.2d 877. View "Louisiana v. Thibodeaux" on Justia Law

In 2009, 39-year-old D.A. accused her cousins William and Lionel Sergine of sexually abusing her when she was a child. Other family members, B.M. and M.S., also came forward to accuse William of sexually abusing them. Because of these accusations, Lionel was indicted for the aggravated rape of D.A. committed before 1981. William was separately indicted for the aggravated rape of D.A. committed in or after 1981, sexual battery of B.M., and aggravated incest of his daughter, M.S. After the trial court denied the state’s motion to try the defendants together, the state convened a second grand jury and obtained new indictments. The co-defendants’ motions to sever their trials were denied and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. After D.A. testified, William and Lionel moved again to sever and for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motions and declined to review the grand jury testimony. Lionel was found guilty as charged of aggravated rape, and William guilty of forcible rape, not guilty of a second count of aggravated rape, and guilty of sexual battery and aggravated incest. The court sentenced Lionel to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, and sentenced William to a total of 40 years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The court of appeal vacated the convictions and sentences, because after reading the grand jury transcript, it found no evidence William and Lionel jointly raped D.A. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed and remanded: "under the unusual circumstances presented here, faced with a record inadequate to evaluate this issue, and mindful of the constitutional prohibition against appellate factfinding in a criminal matter, we remand to the district court to determine whether the grand jury testimony contains undisclosed material warranting new trials for Lionel and William in accordance with Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)." Thereafter, the Court held Lionel and William could seek review in the court of appeal with regard to any unfavorable ruling by the district court. William could also seek review of his claim of prejudicial misjoinder as well as any pretermitted assignments of error. Lionel’s conviction and sentence were reinstated. In addition, the court of appeal’s determination that William Serigne was entitled to a new trial was reversed, and his convictions and sentences were also reinstated. The matter was remanded to the trial court to determine if Lionel and William were entitled to new trials based on undisclosed material in the grand jury testimony. Thereafter, Lionel and William could appeal any unfavorable determination by the district court on remand as well as seek appellate review of any previously pretermitted assignments of error. View "Louisiana v. Serigne" on Justia Law

The district court found clear and convincing evidence that supported at least one ground for termination of parental rights, but it nevertheless concluded termination was not in the best interest of the child. The Louisiana Supreme Court found the district court was clearly wrong in finding that termination of the father’s parental rights was not in the best interest of the child. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and rendered judgment terminating the rights of the father and allowing the child to be adopted. View "Louisiana in the interest of C.F." on Justia Law