State v. Broussard

Full title: STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DONALD BROUSSARD

Court: STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 12, 2020

299 So. 3d 176 (La. Ct. App. 2020)

Opinion

19-792

06-12-2020

STATE of Louisiana v. Donald BROUSSARD

Pride J. Doran, Dwazendra J. Smith, Doran and Cawthorne, 521 East Landry Street, Opelousas, LA 70571, (337) 948-8008, Attorneys for Defendant/Appellant: Donald Broussard Hon. M. Bofill Duhe', District Attorney, Sixteenth Judicial District, Janet M. Perrodin, Assistant District Attorney, W. Claire Howington, Assistant District Attorney, 300 Iberia Street, Suite 200, New Iberia, LA 70560, (337) 369-4420, Attorneys for Appellee: State of Louisiana

SYLVIA R. COOKS, JUDGE

Pride J. Doran, Dwazendra J. Smith, Doran and Cawthorne, 521 East Landry Street, Opelousas, LA 70571, (337) 948-8008, Attorneys for Defendant/Appellant: Donald Broussard

Hon. M. Bofill Duhe', District Attorney, Sixteenth Judicial District, Janet M. Perrodin, Assistant District Attorney, W. Claire Howington, Assistant District Attorney, 300 Iberia Street, Suite 200, New Iberia, LA 70560, (337) 369-4420, Attorneys for Appellee: State of Louisiana

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Phyllis M. Keaty and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.

SYLVIA R. COOKS, JUDGE

The record in this case shows the jury was polled and returned a verdict of guilty of negligent homicide, a violation of La.R.S. 14:32, by a vote of eleven to one.

The United States Supreme Court recently held non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional. Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). (Slip Op.). The Supreme Court unambiguously determined that non-unanimous verdicts are not permissible under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and the prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. ( 140 S.Ct. at p. 1408 ; see also concurrences by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Thomas, JJ.).¹

1 Each concurrence has its own sequence of page numbers.

Further, the opinion recognizes, that its ruling applies to cases pending on direct review. (140 S.Ct. at 1406-07.) Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence states this explicitly. ( 140 S.Ct. at 1402-03.) Such review is in keeping with this state's jurisprudence. See , State v. Ruiz , 06-1755 (La. 4/11/07), 955 So.2d 81. We therefore find the Ramos ruling is applicable and it requires Defendant's conviction by a non-unanimous jury verdict be reversed. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for a new trial.

REVERSED. REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL .