Opinion
No. 2021-K-00205
06-08-2021
STATE of Louisiana v. Calvin M. WILLIAMS, Jr.
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Genovese, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer, Justice Crichton, and Justice McCallum.
Crain, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer, Justice Crichton, and Justice McCallum.
PER CURIAM:
Granted. After the trial court granted defendant's motion to exclude a cellphone video that the State failed to authenticate, the State dismissed the prosecution during jury selection before the jury was sworn. On the next day, the State reinstituted the prosecution. Defendant then filed a motion to quash, which the trial court granted. The court of appeal reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's motion to quash. State v. Williams , 2020-0403 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/16/20), 312 So.3d 1148. Judge Love dissented and found the State entered its order of nolle prosequi to evade the trial court's evidentiary ruling. Williams , 2020-0403, p. 3, 312 So.3d at 1153 (Love, J., dissenting). We agree.
As in State v. Reimonenq , 2019-0367 (La. 10/22/19), 286 So.3d 412, the evidence was properly excluded by the trial court, and the State, by using the vast authority provided by La.C.Cr.P. arts. 61 and 691, evaded the trial court's evidentiary ruling without seeking appellate review. Inherent in justice and the concept of fundamental fairness is ensuring a "balance of forces between the accused and his accuser." Wardius v. Oregon , 412 U.S. 470, 474, 93 S. Ct. 2208, 2212, 37 L. Ed. 2d 82 (1973). As in Reimonenq , the State's exercise of its statutory right under La.C.Cr.P. arts. 61 and 691 to dismiss and reinstitute charges against defendant upset this "balance of forces" to such a degree that it violates defendant's right to due process and fundamental fairness. Thus, under the circumstances presented here, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's motion to quash. Therefore, we reverse the opinion of the court of appeal and we reinstate the trial court's ruling.
REVERSED
WEIMER, C.J., additionally concurring.
I concur in the decision to reinstate the ruling of the district court, finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in granting the defendant's motion to quash. I write separately to point out what I find most disappointing about the state's decision to enter a nolle prosequi–its disregard of and lack of respect for the citizens comprising the venire who were summoned to appear that day to fulfill their civic duty and responsibility. The state's action indisputably deprived defendant of the benefit of the favorable evidentiary ruling and of the jury that had been selected (but not sworn); but, equally, it displayed a lack of respect for the time and sacrifices of the individuals who appeared in court that day to discharge their civic duty and participate in the judicial process. Not only did the state's actions require the peremptory dismissal of the venire that had been selected, but its nolle prosequi and reinstitution of charges would (if unchecked) require another group of individuals to be summoned, at no small cost to taxpayers. The efforts of the citizens who appear to fulfill their civic duty require more respect than that afforded them here.
Ultimately, the result reached in this case confirms, once more, that this court will not tolerate the abuse of the nolle prosequi and reinstitution practice by the state for purposes of obtaining an unfair tactical advantage over a defendant. I agree with that result. However, I continue to believe that to accomplish the delicate balancing act that is required in cases such as this one, "the adoption of a shifting burden of proof that places the burden of showing that defendant was not prejudiced by a ‘nolle prosequi and reinstitution’ on the state" is the preferred approach. See, State v. Reimonenq , 19-0367, p. 9 (La. 10/22/19), 286 So.3d 412, 418-421 (Weimer, J., concurring). As explained in more detail in my concurrence in Reimonenq , fairness dictates that the state, rather than the defendant, bear the burden of demonstrating that the state has used its nolle prosequi and reinstitution power appropriately.
CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons:
I agree with the per curiam. As I remarked in State v. Reimonenq , 19-0367 (La. 10/22/19), 286 So. 3d 412, the district attorney has an awesome amount of power in our justice system, which encompasses the "entire charge and control of every criminal prosecution" in his district, including the determination of "whom, when, and how he shall prosecute." La. C.Cr.P. art. 61. See also State ex rel. Morgan v. State , 15-100 (La. 10/19/16), 217 So. 3d 266 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring); State v. Edmond , 21-630 (La. 5/8/21), 315 So. 3d 854 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring). Here, in my view, the district attorney abused that great power, which must coexist with the various broad grants of authority in our state as well as constitutional precepts of due process and fundamental fairness. The state entered its nolle prosequi order in this case after the district attorney appeared in court unprepared for the hearing, lost the evidentiary motion, and rather than taking a writ on the issue, dismissed the case after a jury was selected, all of which demonstrate an abuse of Article 61 power.
Finally, I further agree with Chief Justice Weimer's concurrence, as the state's actions here constitute a gross infringement on the precious time of our state's citizens and an abuse of the judiciary.
Crain, J. concurring
I concur in the result. However, I prefer to grant and docket to consider the burden of proof regarding prejudice from a nolle prosequi and reinstitution as discussed in State v. Reimonenq , 19-0367 (La. 10/22/19), 286 So.3d 412, 418 (Weimer, J. concurring).
McCallum, J., concurs and assigns reasons
I separately add my voice in support of the per curiam. As implemented in this case, the prosecution effectively granted themselves an additional, "super" peremptory challenge. This allowed the State to retroactively dismiss an entire jury panel.
Furthermore, the prosecutorial conduct in this case came at the expense of citizens of our state who inconvenienced themselves in order to serve their community as prospective jurors. I agree with Chief Justice Weimer's concurring remarks and concern for jurors and the public fisc. A well-functioning justice system is built upon the foundation of an effective jury trial process. A well-functioning jury trial system depends on the willingness of the citizens of this state to offer themselves for jury service. Jury service is inconvenient at best, and those who offer their time to comprise the venire should be appreciated and respected.