STATE v. LINTON (2026)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

Granted. The judgment of the trial court granting defendant's Motion for New Trial is reversed, and the jury's verdict is reinstated. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Defendant was charged with first degree rape and sexual battery of an eleven-year-old victim. After a trial, the jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts on both counts. The defendant filed a Motion for New Trial pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 851, arguing the evidence against him was circumstantial and insufficient to support the verdicts, there was a deficient investigation of the crimes, his defense counsel was ill-prepared for trial and therefore ineffective, the State failed to disclose certain cell phone evidence, and that the jury had an initial 11-1 vote. The State opposed the Motion, citing direct evidence against defendant including the trial testimony of multiple witnesses, explaining that it gave cell phone evidence to defendant's former defense counsel three years before the trial, that any complaints about defendant's legal representation were delay tactics, and that the trial court's additional instructions to the jury resulted in a unanimous conviction.

In separate oral and written reasons, the court, sitting as the “thirteenth juror,” found “internal contradiction and irreconcilable conflicts with physical evidence” that brought defendant's conviction into question. The court found the “weight of the evidence presented reasonable doubt” as to guilt, specifically citing to a lack of evidence of vaginal bruising of the victim and that witnesses in the “thinly constructed house” should have contemporaneously heard the alleged conduct. The trial court found that the thirteenth juror standard applies to the consideration of a new trial motion under La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(B)(5) and noted the inquiry is whether the verdict falls short of serving the best interests of justice. The trial court further concluded that based upon defense counsel's admissions of defective performance at trial and his actual performance at trial, there was a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different, satisfying Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The State sought review of this ruling.

A split panel of the court of appeal denied the State's writ application, declining to consider the merits of the case. State v. Linton, 25-0321 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/19/25) (unpub'd, available at 2025 WL 3229489). The majority noted that a grant of new trial pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(B)(1) may be reversed only if there are no facts to support it, or if the trial court abused its discretion concerning a question of law. Judge Schlegel dissented, acknowledging the non-reviewable nature of new trials granted under La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(B)(1) but finding an “abuse of the legal process” that warranted reversal. He noted the defendant failed to specify any ground under art. 851, and the trial court “far exceeded its role as the thirteenth juror” to become the “sole arbiter of truth.” Id. at 19-20/23. We agree.

A motion for new trial pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 851 is based upon the supposition that an injustice has been done to the defendant. State v. McKinnies, Jr., 13-1412, p. 8 (La. 10/15/14), 171 So. 3d 861, 868. The defendant “has the burden to show an injustice has been done to him, or the motion will be denied, no matter what allegations are raised.” Id. Only an error of law permits appellate review of the granting or the refusal to grant a new trial. La. C.Cr.P. art. 858. Such legal determinations are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. King, 15-1283 (La. 9/18/17), 232 So. 3d 1207. This Court has found that a trial court's ruling under La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(5) is a reviewable decision. State v. Guillory, 10-1231, p. 4 (La. 10/8/10), 45 So. 3d 612, 615 (“[T]here is no support for prior holdings that a trial court ruling under La. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 851(5) is not subject to review.”).

When a trial judge sits as a thirteenth juror when considering a Motion for New Trial pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(5), “the inquiry is whether the verdict falls short of serving the best interests of justice.” State v. Guillory, 10-1231, p. 5 (La. 10/8/10), 45 So. 3d 612, 616, citing State v. Watts, 00-602, p. 9 (1/14/03), 835 So. 2d 441, 449, n. 8. Here, the unanimous verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged in this case did not fall short of serving the best interests of justice. The trial court, following its lengthy and unfettered months-long review of the record, failed to adequately specify what alleged “irreconcilable conflicts” with physical evidence he found, nor did he identify any specifically articulable “internal contradictions” that would rise to the level of injustice warranting a new trial. Moreover, given that the jury considered and rejected the same testimony, the trial court's focus on the allegedly “thinly constructed” home (implying any noise of sexual battery or rape should have been heard by other individuals in the home at the time) does not meet the defendant's burden for obtaining a new trial. Vacating a unanimous jury verdict that considered the victim's testimony that alone could have supported a conviction ¹ was a clear abuse of discretion and, as Judge Schlegel noted, an abuse of the legal process in this case where there is no sufficiently identifiable contradictory evidence.

Finally, regarding defendant's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court has held that such a claim is generally more appropriately raised in an application for post-conviction relief. Post-conviction proceedings enable the district judge to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the issues related to counsel competency. See State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 4 (La. 7/1/97), 699 So. 2d 29, 31, citing State v. Seiss, 428 So. 2d 444, 449 (La. 1983).

Accordingly, the ruling of the trial court granting a new trial is reversed and the jury verdict is reinstated. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The defendant shall be entitled to appeal from the judgment rendered upon remand concerning the conviction and any sentence imposed.

REVERSED. JURY VERDICT REINSTATED. REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   “Testimony of a sexual assault victim alone is sufficient to support a rape conviction, even if the State does not introduce medical, scientific, or physical evidence to prove that the defendant was the individual who committed the crime.” State of Louisiana in the Interest of E.S., 18-1763, p. 14 (La. 10/22/19), 285 So. 3d 1046, 1057. (internal citations omitted).

Guidry, J., concurs.