STATE OF LOUISIANA v. KALEIGH SMITH (2026)

Upon review of the majority opinion, I respectfully dissent. The Louisiana Supreme Court has recently permitted courts to consider and apply the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure in connection with wrongful conviction compensation claims when a procedural issue or obstacle is presented and not provided for in La. R.S. 15:572.8, as discussed below.

It is my opinion that La. C.C.P. art. 801 permits substitution of petitioner's legal representative to proceed in the trial court and to determine whether the wrongful conviction compensation claim under La. R.S. 15:572.8 has merit. This Court has recently determined that wrongful conviction compensation claims “are a unique mix of criminal and civil concepts.” State v. Gordon, 24-0244, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/9/26), ---- So.3d ----, 2026 WL 73943, at * 2. Moreover, the Louisiana Supreme Court has recently applied the civil concept of res judicata, found in Article 532 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in permitting a stay of a state-court wrongful conviction compensation claim where a federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is simultaneously asserted and pending in federal court. See Dent v. State, 25-01115 (La. 9/5/25), 415 So.3d 1266 (wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs and in a concurring opinion, Justice Weimer set forth the Court's recent practice of applying the principles of res judicata, set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure, to wrongful conviction compensation claims), and cases cited therein.

Although not specifically addressing the exact issue of substitution of a deceased party in a wrongful conviction compensation proceeding, this practice by the Louisiana Supreme Court supports the analysis that—in the realm of wrongful conviction compensation proceedings which are sui generis—courts may look to the Code of Civil Procedure for guidance on how to address various procedural obstacles not specifically provided for under the specific provisions of La. R.S. 15:572.8. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the court may look to the Code of Civil Procedure for guidance on the issue of substitution of a deceased petitioner, which is not provided for in La. R.S. 15:572.8. Thus, it is my opinion that substitution is proper.

However, because the motion to dismiss in this case was filed against a deceased party, it is my opinion that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and for the State, if it so chooses, to reurge its motion to dismiss against the properly substituted party to allow that party to properly oppose the motion prior to a hearing.

MORIAL, J. DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS