Langley v. Prince

• Citation: 890 F.3d 504
• Decision Date: 14 May 2018
• Docket Number: No. 16-30486,16-30486
• Parties: Ricky LANGLEY, Petitioner–Appellant v. Howard PRINCE, Warden, Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Respondent–Appellee
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

890 F.3d 504

Ricky LANGLEY, Petitioner–Appellant

v.Howard PRINCE, Warden, Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, Respondent–Appellee

No. 16-30486

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED May 14, 2018

Richard John Bourke, Louisiana Capital Assistance Center, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner–Appellant.

Carla Sue Sigler, Karen Christina McLellan, District Attorney's Office for the Parish of Calcasieu, Lake Charles, LA, for Respondent–Appellee.

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

The State of Louisiana tried Ricky Langley three times for the same killing. At the second trial, the jury acquitted Langley of first degree murder, relevantly defined as (1) killing a human being (2) with specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm (3) where the victim was under twelve. See La. R.S. 14:30(A)(5). Langley's attorneys had conceded the first and third elements, but disputed the second; they argued that Langley was mentally incapable of forming the requisite intent. Years later, at the third trial, and over a double jeopardy objection, the State re-tried Langley for the lesser included offense of second degree murder, defined as (1) killing a human being (2) with specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. See La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(1). This time, the State secured a conviction. Langley now petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his conviction violated the issue-preclusion component of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See Ashe v. Swenson , 397 U.S. 436, 443–46, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970).

The Double Jeopardy Clause, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees that "[n]o person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const. amend. V ; accord Benton v. Maryland , 395 U.S. 784, 787, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). This language embodies an idea "deeply ingrained" in Anglo–American jurisprudence: "that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense." Green v. United States , 355 U.S. 184, 187, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957). To that end, the Double Jeopardy Clause requires that acquittals be final—no matter how legally or factually erroneous they may appear to be. E.g. , United States v. DiFrancesco , 449 U.S. 117, 129–30, 101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980) ; Fong Foo v. United States , 369 U.S. 141, 143, 82 S.Ct. 671, 7 L.Ed.2d 629 (1962). Once an acquittal is rendered, the State may not re-prosecute the defendant for the same crime. E.g. , Green , 355 U.S. at 188, 78 S.Ct. 221. And importantly here, neither may the State prosecute the defendant for even a different crime, if that crime has as an essential element an issue necessarily determined by the acquitting jury's verdict. Ashe , 397 U.S. at 443–46, 90 S.Ct. 1189.

In this case, the verdict from Langley's second trial necessarily determined that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Langley acted with specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. Hence, the State is constitutionally barred from prosecuting Langley for any crime having that same issue as an essential element. Langley's second-degree-murder conviction from his third trial is therefore invalid. We accordingly REVERSE the district court's dismissal of Langley's habeas petition and REMAND with directions to issue the writ. There may well be crimes for which the State can constitutionally prosecute Langley in connection with the horrific facts of this case. But under clearly established Supreme Court precedent, second degree murder as defined in La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(1) cannot reasonably be one of them.

I

The facts are heartrending. Six-year-old J.G. went missing on February 7, 1992. Officers soon arrested Langley, who was then twenty-six years old. Once inside the police cruiser, Langley admitted to killing the young boy and leaving the body in his closet. He described how he rented a room from a family with two children; how J.G. came to the house looking to play with one of those children; how Langley followed J.G. inside; and how Langley strangled J.G. to death. He then gave the officers a videotaped tour of the house, recounting the events in a calm and neutral voice that one witness described as having "no register whatsoever of horror, shame, [or] anxiety." When an officer asked Langley why he had done it, Langley shook his head and answered: "I couldn't tell you. I still go through my mind trying to figure it out.

It's like, I know I did it, but yet it's like something you read in a newspaper."

Langley later gave two more custodial videotaped confessions. His confessions gave differing stories, however, as to whether he also beckoned J.G. inside the house; as to whether he abused J.G. sexually; and as to whether any such abuse took place before or after the strangling.

A

The first trial took place in July 1994. A grand jury charged Langley with first degree murder; a petite jury convicted him; and a judge sentenced him to death. Those proceedings were set aside, however, after a finding that the judge presiding over the grand jury had selected the foreperson on the basis of race. See generally State v. Langley (Langley II) , 813 So.2d 356, 359–65, 373 (La. 2002) (applying Campbell v. Louisiana , 523 U.S. 392, 396–97, 118 S.Ct. 1419, 140 L.Ed.2d 551 (1998) ). Neither party contends that this now-vacated conviction carries double jeopardy consequences. See generally Burks v. United States , 437 U.S. 1, 13, 16, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978).

B

The second trial—the one most relevant here—took place in May 2003. The State re-indicted Langley on the same first-degree-murder charge, and again sought the death penalty. Langley pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. See La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 552(3).

In arguments to the jury, defense counsel repeatedly emphasized that they were not contesting that Langley had killed J.G. The defense likewise conceded to the jury that J.G. had been under the age of twelve.

Instead, the defense's closing argument contested primarily two issues. First, defense attorney Phyllis Mann argued that the State had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Langley acted with specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. The core of the argument was that Langley could not have formed the requisite intent because his mental illness prevented him from understanding and intending the consequences of his actions. Second, defense attorney Clive Smith argued separately that Langley had proved his insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Both arguments turned in part on the same evidence of Langley's mental illness.¹ But Langley's attorneys were careful to delineate the two theories—explaining that they involved different substantive standards, required different degrees of persuasion, and placed the burden of proof on different parties.

As would become relevant on appeal, the judge presiding over Langley's second trial left the courtroom for significant portions of the proceedings, cut off the defense's closing argument early, refused to entertain certain contemporaneous objections, and by and large "failed to maintain order and decorum" in the courtroom. See generally State v. Langley (Langley III) , 896 So.2d 200, 203–07 (La. Ct. App. 2004).

The judge did, however, give the following jury instructions:

First, the judge defined first degree murder. First degree murder in Louisiana consists of (1) killing a human being (2) with specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm (3) with one or more aggravating factors. See La. R.S. 14:30(A). Here, the State chose to rely on two possible aggravators: either (a) that Langley was committing or attempting second degree kidnapping, see id. 14:30(A)(1); or (b) that J.G. was less than twelve years old, see id. 14:30(A)(5).² The judge accordingly defined first degree murder as requiring proof of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge then defined specific intent:

Specific criminal intent is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that a defendant actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act.

And the judge told the jury: "[I]f you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that [Langley] is guilty of first degree murder, your verdict should be ‘guilty.’ "

Second, the judge instructed the jury, "If you are not convinced that [Langley] is guilty of the offense charged, you may find [him] guilty of a lesser offense," including second degree murder. See La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 804(B). Second degree murder in Louisiana is defined in the alternative. As relevant here, it consists of either: (1) killing a human being (2) with specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm ("specific-intent second degree murder"), see La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(1) ; or (1) killing a human being (2) while committing or attempting certain enumerated felonies ("second degree felony murder"), see id. 14:30.1(A)(2).³ The judge instructed the jury as to both types.⁴ With respect to specific-intent second degree murder, the judge gave no definition of "specific intent" other than the one quoted above.⁵ With respect to second degree felony murder, the judge instructed the jury that the relevant felonies were second degree kidnapping, see id. 14:44.1,⁶ and cruelty to juveniles, see id. 14:93.⁷ The judge then told the jury: "If you are not convinced that [Langley] is guilty of first degree murder, but you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] is guilty of second degree murder, the form of your verdict should be ‘guilty of second degree murder.’ " (emphasis added).

Finally, the judge instructed the jury on the insanity defense. He explained that "[Langley] has the burden of proving his insanity at the time of the commission of the offense by a...