STATE v. SPEARS (2021)

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.2021-01-13No. NO. 18-KA-663

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court vacated the defendant's conviction and sentence for second-degree murder and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings, based on the Sixth Amendment requirement of jury unanimity established in Ramos v. Louisiana.

The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder by a 10-2 jury verdict and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On the defendant's direct appeal, this court initially affirmed the conviction, finding the defendant had not preserved the issue of non-unanimous verdicts for review. However, the United States Supreme Court subsequently ruled in Ramos v. Louisiana that the Sixth Amendment requires jury unanimity for convictions in serious criminal offenses, a requirement that applies equally to state and federal trials.

Following the Ramos decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded the case to this court for reconsideration in light of the new constitutional requirement. Because the defendant was convicted of a serious offense carrying hard labor imprisonment by a non-unanimous jury verdict, and the case remains on direct review, the court determined that the defendant's conviction cannot stand under the newly established constitutional standard.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether jury unanimity is required by the Sixth Amendment for serious criminal convictions
Whether non-unanimous verdicts in state trials violate the federal constitutional right to jury trial
Whether a defendant convicted by non-unanimous jury while case is pending on direct appeal is entitled to new trial

Procedural posture

The case came before the appellate court on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court to conduct a new errors patent review in light of Ramos v. Louisiana.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

This matter comes before this Court pursuant to an order of remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court. See, State v. Spears, 20-23 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.3d 1061 (per curiam). In its order, the supreme court instructed this Court to conduct a new errors patent review in light of the United States Supreme Courts ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). For the following reasons, we find that Defendant is entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, we vacate Defendants conviction and sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

As noted in this Courts previous opinion, a Jefferson Parish Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Defendant, John Spears, with the second degree murder of Anthony Tardo, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. See, State v. Spears, 18-663 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/11/19), 286 So.3d 1064, 1071, writ granted and remanded, 20-23 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.3d 1061 (per curiam). At the conclusion of the trial on June 15, 2017, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. Id. at 1078. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Id.

On appeal, Defendant challenged his conviction by a non-unanimous jury as one of his assigned errors. This Court found that Defendant did not properly preserve the issue for appeal. State v. Spears, 286 So.3d at 1095. At the time of Defendants conviction, non-unanimous jury verdicts were permissible under La. Const. Art. I, § 17, La. C.Cr.P. Art. 782, and the applicable jurisprudence. This Court affirmed Defendants conviction and sentence. Id. at 1103. Thereafter, on April 20, 2020, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, supra, where the Supreme Court found that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial—as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment—requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense.

It held, “Wherever we might look to determine what the term ‘trial by an impartial jury trial’ meant at the time of the Sixth Amendments adoption—whether its the common law, state practices in the founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward—the answer is unmistakable. A jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict.” Id. at 1395. The Supreme Court concluded, “There can be no question either that the Sixth Amendments unanimity requirement applies to state and federal trials equally․So if the Sixth Amendments right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to support a conviction in federal court, it requires no less in state court.” Id. at 1397. According to Ramos, Louisiana will have to retry defendants who were convicted of serious offenses by non-unanimous juries, and whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. Thereafter, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted Defendants writ application that challenged his conviction and sentence and remanded the matter to this Court to conduct a new errors patent review in light of Ramos. See, State v. Spears, 296 So.3d at 1061.

Defendant was convicted of second degree murder by a 10-2 jury verdict. Since the punishment for this offense necessitates confinement at hard labor, a jury concurrence of all 12 persons was required to render a verdict. See La. Const. Art. I, § 17; La. C.Cr.P. Art. 782; La. R.S. 14:30.1. Based on Ramos and the fact that the instant case is still on direct review and the jury verdict was not unanimous for the serious offense of second degree murder, we vacate the conviction and sentence. We also find that Defendant is entitled to a new trial and remand the matter for further proceedings.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants conviction and sentence for the second degree murder offense are vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED

FOOTNOTES

. For purposes of the Sixth Amendment, federal law defines petty offenses as offenses subject to imprisonment of six months or less and serious offenses as offenses subject to imprisonment over six months. See generally, Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 327-28, 116 S.Ct. 2163, 135 L.Ed.2d 590 (1996); Hill v. Louisiana, 2013 WL 486691 (E.D. La. 2013).

JOHNSON, J.