State of Louisiana v. John Shallerhorn
This text of State of Louisiana v. John Shallerhorn (State of Louisiana v. John Shallerhorn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2022-K-0377
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL
JOHN SHALLERHORN * FOURTH CIRCUIT
* STATE OF LOUISIANA
*
* *******
MJ JASMINE, J., PRO TEMPORE, DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to deny the writ. I would
grant the defendant’s writ application in that I find once the State provided notice
that it would not seek the death penalty, thus electing to prosecute the first degree
murder charge against Mr. Shallerhorn as a non-capital case, Mr. Shallerhorn was
free to waive a jury trial.
La. R.S. 14:30(C)(2) provides if the State does not seek the death penalty,
the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. art. 782 apply. In State v. Bishop, 10-1840, p. 5 (La.
App. 1 Cir. 6/10/11), 68 So.3d 1197, 1201, the defendant was charged with four
counts of first degree murder, and the State opted not to seek the death penalty.
The First Circuit determined that La. R.S. 14:30(C)(2) “create[s] a hybrid
capital/non-capital statute” granting the State authority to designate “a case as non-
capital by opting to forego the possibility of a death penalty.” Id., 10-1840, p. 6,
68 So.3d at 1202. The First Circuit concluded that in cases where the state opted
not to seek the death penalty, i.e., opted to prosecute first degree murder as a non-
capital offense, the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. art 782(A), requiring a unanimous
jury verdict1, were not applicable. Id., 10-1840, p. 6-7, 68 So.3d at 1202. While
1 La. Const. art. I, Section 17 and La. C.Cr.P. art. 782 were recently amended to require unanimous jury verdicts in crimes which occur after January 1, 2019. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), holding that Louisiana’s non-unanimous jury verdict law was unconstitutional. 1 the procedural posture of the instant case, a pretrial setting, distinguishes it, I agree
with the reasoning in Bishop.
Further, a defendant “who has never faced the prospect of the death penalty”
may validly waive his right to a jury trial.” State v. Serigne, 16-1034, p. 6-7 (La.
12/6/17), 232 So.3d 1227, 1231. The State filed noticed on March 10, 2021, that it
would forgo capital punishment. On March 16, 2021, Mr. Shallerhorn filed a
motion for a bench trial, seeking to waive his right to a jury trial. The trial court
concluded that because the State could at a later date reverse course and opt to seek
the death penalty, it could not grant the waiver of a jury trial. Although it is
conceivable that the State could change its mind, in cases where such a possibility
existed, the trial courts declined to find that the defendants could not waive their
right to a jury trial based on the possibility that the State may change course and
decide to pursue the death penalty. See State v. Lastrapes, 19-56 (La. App. 3 Cir.
10/2/19), 280 So.3d 679; also State v. Lewis, 09-846, p. 1-2 (La. App. 3 Cir.
4/7/10), 33 So.3d 1046, 1049-1050, writ denied, 10-967 (La. 11/24/10), 50 So.3d
825. Additionally, defense counsel indicates that at the pre-trial conference held
on April 1, 2022, the State reiterated its position and offered to stipulate “for
purposes of this issue that the State did not have any intention of seeking the death
penalty in this case.”
Based on the foregoing, I find the requirement for a trial by jury in a capital
case, pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 782(A) does not apply to Mr. Shallerhorn’s case.
Once the State filed its notice that it would not seek the death penalty, the State
chose to prosecute the first degree murder charge as a non-capital case. Therefore,
Mr. Shallerhorn was free to waive a jury trial as the requirement for a trial by jury
in a capital case, pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 782(A), no longer applied. For these
reasons, I would grant the writ and reverse the trial court’s denial of Mr.
Shallerhorn’s motion to waive his right to trial by jury.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Louisiana v. John Shallerhorn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-louisiana-v-john-shallerhorn-lactapp-2022.