STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JESSIE HOFFMAN (2025)

Whether execution by nitrogen hypoxia violates La. Const. Art. I § 20, remains an open question, containing two unanswered parts: (1) the impact of the disjunctive nature of § 20,¹ and (2) how courts are to determine the legality of methods of execution under § 20.² I therefore respectfully dissent and would grant and remand to the trial court for a full evidentiary hearing.³

FOOTNOTES

1.   Compare U.S. const. amend. 8 with La. Const. Art. I § 20. Only one reported appellate case in Louisiana has discussed the disjunctive “or” and it did so hastily. Watts v. Phelps, 377 So.2d 1317, 1319 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1979). Many states also use disjunctive language: Ala. Const. art. I, § 15; Ark. Const. art. II, § 9; Cal. Const. art. I, § 17; Haw. Const. art. I, § 12; Kan. Const. Bill of Rights § 9; La. Const. art. I, § 20; Me. Const. art. I, § 9; Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. XXVI; Mich. Const. art. I, § 16; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 5; Miss. Const. art. III, § 28; Nev. Const. art. I, § 6; N.H. Const. pt. 1, art. XXXIII; N.C. Const. art. I, § 27; N.D. Const. art. I, § 11; Okla. Const. art. II, § 9; S.C. Const. art. I, § 15; Tex. Const. art. I, § 13; Wyo. Const. art. I, § 14. Courts in states with disjunctive language, including this Court, construe them more broadly than the federal Eighth Amendment, in at least some respects. See, e.g., Good v. Comm'r of Correction, 629 N.E.2d 1321, 1325 (Mass. 1994), State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746, 750 (La. 1992), People v. Bullock, 485 N.W.2d 866, 872 (Mich. 1992). Where a relevant state provision is limited by decisions based on the Eighth Amendment, the constitution states so explicitly. See e.g., Fla. Const. Art. 1 § 17.

2.   This Court has only once passed on the constitutionality of a method of execution, and it did so prior to the adoption of our current constitution and under the Eighth Amendment. State v. Crook, 253 La. 961, 969, 221 So.2d 473, 476 (1969).

3.   Nothing prevents the applicant from filing in the 19th JDC and asking it to address these complex issues of state constitutional law. Regardless, although styled as a post-conviction application, Hoffman's collateral filing (as to his § 20 claim) is properly viewed as a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence, under La. C.Cr.P. art. 882, which can be raised at any time. See generally, Smtih v. Cajun Insulation, 392 So.2d 398 402 n. 2 (La. 1980) (“courts should look through the caption of pleadings in order to ascertain their substance and to do substantial justice”).

GRIFFIN, J., would grant and assigns reasons.