STATE v. HAUSER (2020)

Writ application denied.

I would grant and docket the State's writ application to provide the Court an opportunity to set necessary parameters and guidelines concerning the scope of a hearing pursuant to both Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016). The district court in this matter recognized the voluminous evidence of defendant's rehabilitation since his imprisonment but determined that such evidence did not outweigh the heinousness of his crimes, finding the murders of defendant's step-brother and step-mother were not the result of impulsiveness or transient immaturity but were calculated acts of cold-blooded murder. Accordingly, the district court denied defendant parole eligibility for either count of first degree murder. On review the court of appeal found the district court abused its discretion in denying defendant the benefit of parole on both counts of first degree murder, reasoning that the extensive evidence of defendant's rehabilitation demonstrated he was not irreparably corrupt.

In my view, the lower courts require further guidance on both the application of the requirements of La. C.Cr.P. art. 878.1 and the appropriate standard of review to be applied by the appellate courts. See also State v. Allen, 18-1042 (La. 11/5/18), 255 So.3d 998 (Crichton, J., would grant and docket) (“[I]n making this determination [as to parole eligibility], a court should focus on the facts of the underlying conviction and defendant's criminal history, if any, as well as the defendant's behavior record during confinement. Education, family background, and issues of family support would also likely prove helpful in the judge's determination.”); see Scott Crichton & Stuart Kottle, Appealing Standards: Louisiana's Constitutional Provision Governing Appellate Review of Criminal Facts, 79 La. L. Rev. 369, 390 (2018) (“Often, the appropriate standard of review is ‘manifest abuse of discretion.” ’). Accordingly, I would grant and docket this writ application to examine the multiple issues presented and to address proper procedures and standards for sentencing hearings in juvenile homicide cases, as informed by Miller and Montgomery.

Weimer, J., would grant and docket. Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons. Crain, J., would grant and docket for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.