STATE v. RUFFEN (2020)

Application for reconsideration denied.

The defendant was apparently convicted by a jury verdict of 10-2. The defendant raised a pro se objection to the non-unanimous jury verdict while his case was on direct review in the First Circuit Court of Appeal.¹ Because the Court of Appeal considered the defendant's objection to be an untimely supplemental brief, it did not consider the issue. The defendant tried again to raise the issue with this Court.

As I explained in my dissent in State v. Hodge, 19-KA-0568 and 19-KA-0569 (La. 11/19/19), I believe the evidence is now clear that Louisiana's non-unanimous jury scheme that originated with Louisiana's 1898 Constitutional Convention, has racist origins and continues to have a racially disparate effect today. Therefore I believe that non-unanimous jury verdicts violate the Equal Protection clause. However, because this Court cannot consider issues raised on appeal for the first time that were not raised in the district court, I concur in the denial of the defendant's application for reconsideration.

I write separately to note the diligence with which this defendant has pursued this issue, despite his counsel.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Defendant, sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, tried to raise the issue pro se because his appointed counsel from the Louisiana Appellate Project did not do so in the three pages of law and argument he submitted on behalf of his client. From the record before us, it is not clear whether counsel at defendant's 2018 trial for second degree murder objected to the 10-2 jury verdict.

Johnson, C.J., concurs and assigns reasons. Crain, J., recused.