State of Louisiana v. Joseph Jamaad Leday

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: June 10, 2020
• Docket: KA-0019-0105
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

19-105

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JOSEPH JAMAAD LEDAY

************ APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 13239-16 HONORABLE RONALD F. WARE, DISTRICT JUDGE

************ SYLVIA R. COOKS JUDGE ************

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.

REVERSED. REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

John F. Derosier, District Attorney Brittany Bell-Chavis, Assistant District Attorney Shelley A. Deville, Assistant District Attorney 901 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 800 Lake Charles, LA 70601 (337) 437-3400 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana

Chad M. Ikerd Louisiana Appellate Project P.O. Box 2125 Lafayette, LA 70502 (225) 806-2930 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Joseph Jamaad Leday COOKS, J.

The record in this case shows the jury was polled and returned a verdict of

guilty by a vote of eleven to one.

The United States Supreme Court recently held non-unanimous jury verdicts

unconstitutional. Ramos v. Louisiana, 2020 WL 1906545, 590 U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct.

___ (2020). (Slip Op.) The Supreme Court unambiguously determined that non-

unanimous verdicts are not permissible under the Sixth Amendment to the

Constitution and the prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth

Amendment. (Slip Op. at p. 26; see also concurrences by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh

and Thomas, JJ.).1

Further, the opinion recognizes, that its ruling applies to cases pending on

direct review.2 (Slip Op. at 22-23.) Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence states this

explicitly. (Slip Op. at 15-17.) Such review is in keeping with this state’s

jurisprudence. See, State v. Ruiz, 06-1755 (La. 4/11/07), 955 So.2d 81. We therefore

find the Ramos ruling is applicable and it requires that Defendant’s conviction by a

non-unanimous jury verdict be reversed. Accordingly, the case must be remanded

for a new trial.

1 Each concurrence has its own sequence of page numbers.

2 In light of the Supreme Court’s instruction in Ramos, we need not address the State’s contention that Defendant allegedly failed to file a contemporaneous objection or written pretrial motion on the issue that a non-unanimous verdict violates his constitutional right to due process. Such a review can be raised as an error patent.