Opinion
19-105
06-10-2020
STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph Jamaad LEDAY
John F. Derosier, District Attorney, Brittany Bell-Chavis, Assistant District Attorney, Shelley A. Deville, Assistant District Attorney, 901 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 800, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 437-3400, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana Chad M. Ikerd, Louisiana Appellate Project, P.O. Box 2125, Lafayette, LA 70502, (225) 806-2930, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Joseph Jamaad Leday
John F. Derosier, District Attorney, Brittany Bell-Chavis, Assistant District Attorney, Shelley A. Deville, Assistant District Attorney, 901 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 800, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 437-3400, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana
Chad M. Ikerd, Louisiana Appellate Project, P.O. Box 2125, Lafayette, LA 70502, (225) 806-2930, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Joseph Jamaad Leday
Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.
COOKS, J.
The record in this case shows the jury was polled and returned a verdict of guilty by a vote of eleven to one.
The United States Supreme Court recently held non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional. Ramos v. Louisiana , 2020 WL 1906545, 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. (Slip Op. at p. 26; see also concurrences by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh and Thomas, JJ.).
Each concurrence has its own sequence of page numbers.
Further, the opinion recognizes, that its ruling applies to cases pending on direct review. (Slip Op. at 22-23.) Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence states this explicitly. (Slip Op. at 15-17.) 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 that Defendant's conviction by a non-unanimous jury verdict be reversed. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for a new trial.
In light of the Supreme Court's instruction in Ramos , we need not address the State's contention that Defendant allegedly failed to file a contemporaneous objection or written pretrial motion on the issue that a non-unanimous verdict violates his constitutional right to due process. Such a review can be raised as an error patent.
--------
REVERSED. REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL .