STATE OF LOUISIANA v. HENRY TAYLOR (2025)

I concur in the Court's decision to remand this matter to consider the merits. The legislature recently acted to make the two-year deadline unwaivable. See Acts 2024, 2nd Ex. Sess., No. 10, § 1, eff. Aug. 1, 2024. However, the defendant's motion was filed prior to that change in the law.

The prior law enables a district attorney to waive procedural objections like timeliness, but the underlying motion still must be heard on the merits at the trial court. The waiver establishes, or at least strongly intimates, that the local district attorney supports the underlying motion. That could be entirely appropriate in the present case. However, I am concerned with the State's ability to preserve its interest in maintaining this long-final conviction through a meaningful representation in the normal adversarial process.

The Louisiana Constitution provides for the “fairness, dignity, and respect” of any person who is a victim of a crime.” La. Const. art. I, §. 25.¹ In my view, when a district attorney fails to oppose a post-conviction motion vacating an otherwise final conviction, he or she is taking a view contrary to that of the factfinder and the appellate courts, thus providing a reasonable basis for the state to consider an intervention. La. Const. art. IV, §. 8. If the victim does not join in the request for relief, it intensifies the concern that an intervention is justified to ensure all the state's interests are properly represented. There is no intervention motion pending, but if one is filed on remand, the trial court should carefully consider it.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Pursuant to La. R.S. 46:1844, the victim or designated family member of the victim has the right to be present at all “critical stages” of the prosecution. See La. R.S. 46:1842(4) (“ ‘Critical stage’ means any judicial proceeding at which there is a disposition of the charged offense or a lesser offense, or a sentence imposed pursuant thereto.”)

COLE, J., concurs and assigns reasons: