Opinion
NO. 2019-KA-0186
09-09-2020
STATE of Louisiana v. Trae WILLIAMS
Leon Cannizzaro, District Attorney, Kyle Daly, Assistant District Attorney, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ORLEANS PARISH, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Meghan Harwell Bitoun, Louisiana Appellate Project, P. O. Box 4252, New Orleans, LA 70178-4252, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Leon Cannizzaro, District Attorney, Kyle Daly, Assistant District Attorney, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ORLEANS PARISH, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Meghan Harwell Bitoun, Louisiana Appellate Project, P. O. Box 4252, New Orleans, LA 70178-4252, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
(Court composed of Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins )
ON REMAND FROM SUPREME COURT
Judge Edwin A. Lombard
This matter is on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court for an error patent review in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). After reviewing the record in light of the applicable law, we find that Ramos is applicable and, accordingly, remand the case back to the district court for further proceedings.
Relevant Fact and Procedural History
The defendant's conviction for manslaughter is based on a non-unanimous jury verdict. On appeal, this court reversed the defendant's conviction, State v. Williams, 2019-0186, pp. 2-5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/25/19), 280 So.3d 1185, 1187-89, but the Louisiana Supreme Court subsequently reversed that decision, State v. Williams, 2019-01690, p. 1 (La. 6/12/20), 347 So.3d 632. However, because the Ramos decision (holding that jury verdicts in state felony trials must be unanimous and overruling longstanding precedent authorizing non-unanimous jury verdicts in state prosecutions) was handed down while the defendant's appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court has remanded the case back to this court for an error patent review to determine the applicability of Ramos.
On June 12, 2020, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued the following per curiam opinion:
Writ granted. The district court did not err in admitting testimony as to the victim's telephone call to his daughter of the victim's fearful state of mind and present sense impression of the altercation. See State v. Magee , 11-0574, p. 48 (La. 9/28/12), 103 So.3d 285, 319. As to the hearsay testimony of the victim's statement that he had called 911 and thought that defendant and Mr. Williams were going to kill him, this testimony was not contemporaneously objected to, and thus the issue was not preserved for appeal. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 841. The ruling of the court of appeal, which vacated the convictions and pretermitted all remaining assignments of error is reversed.
However, the present matter was pending on direct review when Ramos v. Louisiana was decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). The matter is remanded to the court of appeal for further proceedings and to conduct a new error patent review in light of Ramos v. Louisiana . If the non-unanimous jury claim was not preserved for review in the trial court or was abandoned during any stage of the proceedings, the court of appeal should nonetheless consider the issue as part of its error patent review. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2).
State v. Williams, 2019-01690, p. 1 (La. 6/12/20), 347 So.3d 632.
Discussion
The record shows that the defendant was convicted by a ten-to-two vote of the responsive verdict of manslaughter. Following the verdict, the district court stated,
Let the record reflect that the verdict was — the result of the polling is that it was ten, yes and two, no. I find that constitutes a valid verdict, and I accept the verdict from the jury. We will keep these polling slips under seal in the record.
Thus, because the defendant's case was on direct appeal at the time Ramos was determined, the decision is applicable and the defendant's conviction, based on a non-unanimous jury verdict, must be vacated. See Ramos, supra ; see also State v. Myles, 2019-0965 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/29/20), 299 So.3d 643, 643–44 ; State v. Donovan , 2019-0722 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/27/20), 301 So.3d 541 ; State v. Hunter , 2019-0901 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/27/20), 364 So.3d 249 ).
Conclusion
Pursuant to Ramos, we vacate the defendant's conviction and remand the matter back to the district court for further proceedings.