STATE v. BROUSSARD (2020)

The record in this case shows the jury was polled and returned a verdict of guilty of negligent homicide, a violation of La.R.S. 14:32, by a vote of eleven to one.

The United States Supreme Court recently held non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (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. (140 S.Ct. at p. 1408; see also concurrences by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Thomas, JJ.).¹

Further, the opinion recognizes, that its ruling applies to cases pending on direct review. (140 S.Ct. at 1406-07.) Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence states this explicitly. (140 S.Ct. at 1402-03.) 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 Defendant's conviction by a non-unanimous jury verdict be reversed. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for a new trial.

REVERSED. REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Each concurrence has its own sequence of page numbers.

SYLVIA R. COOKS, JUDGE