STATE OF LOUISIANA v. BRIDGETTE DIGEROLAMO (2024)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

04/30/24

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2024-KK-00287

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VS.

BRIDGETTE DIGEROLAMO

On Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge

PER CURIAM

Writ granted. The jury's verdict finding defendant not guilty is facially valid and was read in open court by the minute clerk. After neither party requested polling, the trial court thanked the jurors for their service and dismissed them to the jury room. The trial court then declared the case concluded, adjourned court, and met privately with the jury. The verdict was sufficiently received and recorded to make it final under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure articles 810 and 811.

Once final, a verdict of acquittal gives rise to the prohibition against double jeopardy. See U.S. Const. Amendment V; La. Const. art. I, § 15; State v. Gasser, 22-0064 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So. 3d 249, 260; State v. Hurst, 367 So.2d 1180, 1181 (La. 1979). When a defendant is acquitted by a verdict duly returned and received, “the court [can] take no other action than to order his discharge.” Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662, 671; 16 S.Ct. 1192, 1195; 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896). Here, after receiving a final verdict and retiring the jury, the trial court erred by allowing the jury to continue to deliberate and change its verdict, particularly after the court violated the sanctity of any further deliberations by meeting privately with the jury. Likewise, as both parties agree, the trial court erred by granting a mistrial months later. The trial court's order declaring a mistrial is reversed, and the jury's verdict finding defendant not guilty is reinstated.

ORDER DECLARING MISTRIAL REVERSED; NOT-GUILTY VERDICT REINSTATED.

Unfortunately, a mistake was make by a relatively new judge. Our role in the case immediately before the court is to review and, where appropriate, correct a mistake so that this judge and others can learn, make corrections, and not repeat the mistake. To castigate this judge in this case is simply not the proper forum because of the need to evaluate and consider far too many facts, which are simply not in evidence in this matter. Passing judgment on this judge at this time in this forum on this record could, itself, implicate the Louisiana Code of Judicial Conduct and result in recusal. See Canon 3(C).

A judge must “be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.” La. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3(A)(1). As explained in the per curiam opinion, the law providing for the manner in which to accept and record criminal verdicts is both fundamental and clear, see La.C.Cr.P. arts. 810, 811, as is the law barring judges from meeting privately with the jury during deliberations, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 791; see also State v. Frisby, 19 La.Ann. 143 (1867). Here, the trial judge's blatant violation of these laws shocks the conscience and implicates Canon 3(A)(1) of the Louisiana Code of Judicial Conduct.

Weimer, C.J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.