Opinion
No. 2023-KP-01008
03-05-2024
STATE of Louisiana v. Laura DUGAS
Crichton, J., would grant reconsideration and assigns reasons. Genovese, J., would grant. Griffin, J., would grant.
Applying for Reconsideration, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Number(s) 00-128813, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) 22-453.
1Application for reconsideration not considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6.
Crichton, J., would grant reconsideration and assigns reasons.
Genovese, J., would grant.
Griffin, J., would grant. CRICHTON, J., would grant reconsideration and assigns reasons:
1Although this Court previously denied the writ application in this matter, I voted to grant and docket:
‘[S]entencing is a critical stage of the proceedings at which the right to the effective assistance of counsel is sacrosanct.’ State v. Aguliar-Benitez, 2021-00174, p. 7 (La. 10/10/21), 332 So.3d 618, 622 (Crichton, J., concurring). In State v. Harris, 2018-1012 (La. 7/9/20), 340 So.3d 845, this Court provided defendants with an opportunity to remedy a violation of this right. Determining to whom this remedy is available is, in my view, an imperative of this Court. As I have stated previously, "[a] ruling from this Court addressing the issues in Harris and any potential retroactivity of that decision would certainly be beneficial for lower courts in their application of La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8." State v. Marcus Harris, 2021-01641, p. 1 (La. 1/19/22), 331 So.3d 321, 322 (Crichton, J., concurring).
State v. Dugas, 23-1008 (La. 12/19/23), 375 So.3d 407 (Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons).
Given the implication herein of the Harris decision and those issues outlined in State v. Curley, 16-1708 (La. 6/27/18), 250 So. 3d 236, this case warrants our review. I have consistently noted that while Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6 prohibits reconsideration of a writ denial, an exception to this rule must exist in order to further the interest of justice in certain extraordinary circumstances where good cause is shown. Because I find good 2cause shown in this case, under the facts presented, I would grant reconsideration and docket the case for oral argument.
This Court in Curley held that evidence concerning "Battered Woman’s Syndrome," ("an inartful (and likely outdated) term)" is admissible in a justification/self-defense case and not solely in the insanity context. Furthermore, the defendant in Curley was deprived of effective assistance of counsel by counsel’s failure to perform any reasonable investigation into how to present a Battered Woman’s Syndrome defense of self-defense. Curley, 250 So. 3d at 246, 249.
See Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Pierson, 22-1605 (La. 4/4/23), 358 So. 3d 861 (Crichton, J., would grant reconsideration for good cause shown), citing Boutte v. Boutte, 2020-00985 (La. 2/9/21), 309 So. 3d 731 (Crichton, J., would grant rehearing for good cause shown); State v. Hauser, 20-429 (La. 10/6/20), 302 So. 3d 514 (same); State v. Franklin, 19-KK-1454 (La. 1/14/20), 286 So. 3d 1039 (Crichton, J., additionally concurs in the grant of reconsideration); Harris v. Ant. Home Assurance Co., 2018-589 (La. 8/31/18), 251 So. 3d 397, 398 (same); Marable v. Empire Truck Sales of La., LLC, 2017-1469 (La. 11/17/17), 230 So.3d 212 (Crichton, J., would grant reconsideration and grant and docket the writ application). See also, State v. Alexander, Jr., 21-0064 (La. 1/12/22), 330 So. 3d 314 (Crichton, J., would grant reconsideration in light of good cause shown; Griffin, J., would grant for reasons assigned by Crichton, J.) (Genovese, J., would also grant reconsideration in light of the inconsistent application of Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6).