STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JAIDEN KEPHART (2024)

Writ application denied.

Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.

Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons.

Griffin, J., would grant and docket for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.

I would grant the writ application and docket the matter to determine whether defendant's near maximum sentence is excessive.

The events giving rise to the charges are, no doubt, tragic. At 11:15 a.m. on September 13, 2018, defendant volunteered to drive a friend, Jared McCurdy, to his job. Defendant's girlfriend, Desiree White, accompanied them in the Toyota Camry. As defendant made a left turn into the parking lot of the business where McCurdy was employed, a Ford F-150 tow truck traveling at 47 mph struck the passenger side of defendant's car, killing Ms. White and seriously injuring Mr. McCurdy. The night before this horrific accident, the three had consumed controlled substances together, but drank no alcohol. A physician reviewing defendant's toxicology report opined that, although the benzodiazepine [Xanax] level was in therapeutic range, when combined with a THC [marijuana] level of 5.1ng/mL (just above the 5.0ng/mL driving limit applicable in many other states), he believed it would affect driving ability. Based on these results, the state charged defendant with first degree negligent vehicular injuring, La. R.S. 14:39.2, and vehicular homicide, La. R.S. 14:32.1. Defendant pleaded guilty as charged without an agreement with the state on the sentence.

At the sentencing hearing, the presentence investigation report and letters attesting to defendant's character were admitted into evidence.¹ Ms. White's mother and Mr. McCurdy provided victim impact statements—Ms. White's mother spoke at the hearing while Mr. McCurdy submitted a letter in advance but did not appear at the proceeding. Defendant made a statement expressing remorse over the death of his girlfriend. Ultimately, the court found two aggravating factors and no mitigating factors applied and imposed concurrent sentences of five years on the vehicular injuring conviction and 25 years at hard labor on the vehicular homicide conviction.²

The 25-year sentence imposed is near the 30-year maximum sentence for vehicular homicide. This Court has held that “sentences at or near the maximum should ordinarily apply only to the most blameworthy offenders committing the most serious violations of the described offense.” State v. LeBlanc, 2009-1355, p. 10 (La. 7/6/10), 41 So.3d 1168, 1173. If defendant or his offense is not among these most extreme categories, then the sentence is excessive as it would “make[ ] no reasonable contribution to acceptable penal goals and therefore, [would be] nothing more than the needless imposition of pain and suffering.” State v. Guzman, 1999-1753, p. 15 (La. 5/16/00), 769 So.2d 1158, 1167.

I would grant the writ application because, again, while the accident was absolutely tragic, I am not convinced that defendant is among the most blameworthy offenders. Defendant was not speeding or driving erratically. The toxicology report showed minimal levels of intoxicants in his bloodstream at the time of the accident. Moreover, it is not evident to what degree the collision was caused by defendant's intoxication and to what degree it was an ordinary, yet undeniably awful, car accident.³ Jurors may have reasonably questioned whether all the elements of the charged offenses had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, defendant accepted responsibility for his part in the tragedy by pleading guilty as charged, without an agreed upon sentence, preventing the victims from having to endure the uncertainty and pain of a jury trial. The 19-year-old defendant had no significant criminal record, only a traffic ticket and a citation for illegal possession of alcoholic beverages. Also, while not prohibited in a sentencing proceeding, I am troubled by the court's seemingly disproportionate reliance on hearsay letters from individuals opining on defendant's flawed character.

In short, I agree with Judge Stephens's dissent and question whether defendant is among the worst offenders deserving of a near maximum sentence. For these reasons, I would grant the writ application and docket the matter for briefing and oral argument. Doing so would allow this Court to consider the full record to make the fact-intensive determination of whether the sentences imposed on defendant were excessive.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The limited materials submitted with the writ application suggest that letters of both support and opposition to defendant were admitted into evidence.

2.   In a split decision, the appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court to impose the erroneously waived mandatory fine for the charge of vehicular homicide but otherwise affirmed the sentence. State v. Kephart, 55,286, pp. 12–13, (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/23), 372 So.3d 933, 939–40.

3.   Even if defendant were not found criminally liable, he may have been found civilly liable for the wrongful death of Ms. White and the injuries sustained by Mr. McCurdy. See La.C.C. arts. 2315.2; 2315.