STATE v. HAUSER (2020)

Application for reconsideration not considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6.

Although I previously voted to grant the state's writ application in this matter and continue to believe this matter should have been granted and docketed, I am constrained by La. S.Ct. Rule IX, § 6 and La. C.Cr.P. art. 922(D) to not consider this request for reconsideration.

I would grant the State's application for reconsideration in accordance with my vote to grant and docket the State's original writ application. In my view, this matter highlights the lower courts’ need for guidance as to the proper procedures and standards to be applied in juvenile homicide sentencing hearings, as informed by 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). As I have previously stated, while Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6 prohibits reconsideration of a prior writ denial, an exception to this rule must exist in order to further the interest of justice in certain extraordinary circumstances where good cause is shown. See also Harris v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 2018-589 (La. 8/31/18), 251 So. 3d 397, 398 (Crichton, J., would grant reconsideration); Marable v. Empire Truck Sales of La., LLC, 2017-1469 (La. 11/17/17), 230 So.3d 212 (Crichton, J., would grant reconsideration); State v. Franklin, 2019-1454 (La. 1/14/20), 286 So. 3d 1039 (mem) (Crichton, J., additionally concurring with grant of reconsideration). Such good cause has been shown here, and I therefore conclude the extraordinary circumstances at hand require that this internal operations rule yield in the interest of justice.

Weimer, J., concurs in the refusal to reconsider and assigns reasons. Crichton, J., would grant reconsideration and assigns reasons. Crain, J., concurs for reasons assigned by Justice Weimer.