Opinion
2020 KA 1338
10-12-2021
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ELISA LANDRY
Hillar C. Moore District Attorney Dylan C. Alge Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana Prentice Lang White Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant -Appellant Elisa Landry
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 04-18-0549, SECTION 5, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE TARVALD ANTHONY SMITH, JUDGE
Hillar C. Moore District Attorney Dylan C. Alge Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana
Prentice Lang White Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant -Appellant Elisa Landry
BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
CHUTZ, J.
The defendant, Elisa Landry, was charged by bill of information with attempted second-degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:30.1 (count I); simple kidnapping, a violation of La. R.S. 14:45 (count II); and resisting a police officer with force or violence, a violation of La. R.S. 14:108.2 (count III). She pled not guilty on all counts. She filed a motion to instruct the jury that a unanimous verdict was required to convict her on each count, but the motion was denied. Following a jury trial, by non-unanimous verdicts, on count I, she was found guilty of the responsive offense of attempted manslaughter, a violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:31; and on counts II and III, she was found not guilty. She was sentenced to fifteen years at hard labor. She now appeals, challenging the constitutionality of the non-unanimous verdict on count I. For the following reasons, we vacate the conviction and sentence on count I and remand for further proceedings.
The motion was filed prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, ___U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020).
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NON-UNANIMOUS VERDICT
In her sole assignment of error, the defendant contends the conviction on count I was based on a non-unanimous verdict, and thus, must be vacated under Ramos v. Louisiana, ___U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020).
In the recent decision of Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. at ___, 140 S.Ct. at 1397, the United States Supreme Court overruled Apodaca v. Oregon 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed 2d 184 (1972), and held that the right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, incorporated against the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. The Ramos Court further indicated its ruling may require retrial of those defendants convicted of felonies by non-unanimous verdicts whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. Ramos, ___U.S. at ___, 140 S.Ct. at 1406. Thus, as the verdict on count I was non-unanimous, we hereby set aside the conviction and sentence, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. See State v. Varnado, 2020-00356 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.3d 1051 (per curiam) ("[t]he present matter was pending on direct review when Ramos v. Louisiana was decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies."); State v. Curry, 2018-1764 (La.App. 1st Cir. 11/6/20), 315 So.3d 912, 913.
Oregon's non-unanimous jury verdict provision of its state constitution was challenged in Apodaca. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972), decided with Apodaca, upheld Louisiana's then-existing constitutional and statutory provisions allowing nine-to-three jury verdicts in criminal cases.
This assignment of error has merit.
DECREE
For these reasons, we vacate the conviction and sentence of Elisa Landry on Count I and remand the matter.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ON COUNT I VACATED; REMANDED.