State in Interest of L.R.
| Decision Date | 30 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2021-C-0141,2021-C-0141 |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF L.R. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
JCL
I respectfully dissent and assign the following reasons:
I would find that a victim has ancillary standing to file motions and writs and place objections relevant to any violation or infringement of a victim's rights during all critical stages in the juvenile or criminal justice process where the rights are guaranteed.1
The majority opinion fails to cite relevant jurisprudence and prematurely decides that the victim's rights were not violated or infringed and that a recusal is unwarranted. Although a proper review of the totality of circumstances in this case may eventually reveal that the victim's right-to-be-heard was not violated during the early release process or that the victim's right-to-fairness was not denied when the court refused to address the recusal motion to ensure public confidence in the fairness of the juvenile action, it is imperative that the majority's lack of nonparty standing holding be reversed as it has significant repercussions to victims and the justice process. The majority's holding greatly diminishes the constitutional rightsof all victims in both the juvenile and criminal justice systems in Louisiana, as well as the constitutional rights of other nonparties, such as the right-to-access enjoyed by the press and public.
The following guiding principles are applicable when interpreting victim rights statutes: (1) victims must be meaningful participants in the justice process; (2) victim's rights extend to all critical stages of a case, including proceedings without a hearing or ex parte; (3) victims are re-victimized in the justice process when they are excluded or minimized from the process; and (4) legislatures intended victims to have independent and meaningful procedural mechanisms to assert and enforce their rights and did not intend to afford victims' rights but provide no meaningful enforceable remedy to enforce those rights.2
In the case sub judice involving crimes of violence,3 I find that the relator, D.S. ("Victim"), has ancillary, independent standing to invoke his right-to-be-heard and right-to-fairness during the early release process, including proceedings ex parte or held without a hearing. Thus, I would vacate all court rulings in response to the motions filed by Victim, lift the stay of the hearing, and remand this matter to the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court ("Juvenile Court") for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Appellate courts enjoy broad supervisory jurisdiction "over cases which arise within its circuit," pursuant to La. Const. art. V, § 10, and a "judge may issue . . . all other needful writs, orders, and process in aid of the jurisdiction of his court" under La. Const. art. V, § 2. I agree with the majority that our supervisory jurisdiction extends to a review of a lower court's ruling on the standing of a nonparty to the proceedings.
I particularly find that our supervisory jurisdiction extends to a review of a court's ruling on the standing of natural or juridical persons to appear and file objections, motions or writs in a pending juvenile or criminal proceeding as a nonparty, especially when the person asserts an interest, which is derived from a constitutional right, that is guaranteed in the pending proceeding, and that was allegedly infringed or violated, and suffers an injury-in-fact that is relevant to the challenged ruling that caused the infringement or violation.
I disagree with the majority's holding that a victim in a "juvenile/criminal proceeding" does not have a standing interest to file motions because "a victim is not recognized in law as a party in a juvenile/criminal proceeding." Although the majority recognizes victims' constitutional rights in juvenile court, the practical effect of their holding is to deny an enforceable procedural remedy when these rights are allegedly violated or infringed.
I do not find that the legislature intended to enact laws to protect a victim and to grant rights in juvenile and criminal courts and then procedurally prohibit that victim from meaningfully enforcing those rights. Unlike the findings of Juvenile Court and the majority, I interpret the laws and jurisprudence as affording victims procedural mechanisms to enforce their constitutional rights, which have been allegedly infringed or violated in a proceeding where those rights are guaranteed. I further hold that Louisiana laws and jurisprudence afford victims the right to object and intervene within or to file motions or writs ancillary to thejuvenile or criminal proceeding in which the infringement or violation has allegedly occurred.
The facts and procedural history are as follows:
On March 26, 2019, Victim was shot by L.R. This shooting is the object of the underlying juvenile civil action. As a result of the shooting, Victim now has a physical impairment and developmental disability as he is paralyzed and in a wheelchair with no bodily functions from the waist down. Victim's grandmother ("Grandmother") is his caretaker and a family victim representative in juvenile court.
On April 3, 2019, the State of Louisiana, through the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office ("State"), filed a Petition of Delinquency in Juvenile Court naming L.R. as a party and requesting that the court adjudicate L.R. delinquent ("Petition"). L.R., through his attorney of record, an attorney with the Louisiana Center for Children's Rights, appeared before Juvenile Court throughout 2019 and 2020.
On July 2, 2019, Juvenile Court adjudicated L.R. delinquent due to the commission of the following crimes of violence: Attempted 2nd Degree Murder, Armed Robbery, Illegal Use of a Weapon, and Illegal Possession of a Handgun.
On August 27, 2019 at the time of disposition, Juvenile Court placed L.R. in the secure care of the Office of Juvenile Justice ("OJJ") until his 21st birthday in 2026 and set forth the following early release goals: "[u]pon reaching the age of 17 [in 2022], should the juvenile have obtained his high school diploma, obtained two trades, and have minimal code of conduct violations, the Court will entertain releasing the juvenile at that time."
On June 22, 2020, Juvenile Court was informed at an OJJ Review Hearing that L.R.
On November 12, 2020, L.R.'s attorney filed a Motion to Modify Disposition, including a motion for early release ("Motion for Early Release"). Presently, L.R.'s former attorney is the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office Chief of the Juvenile Division. District Attorney Jason Williams, who was newly elected on November 3, 2020, appointed L.R.'s former attorney as the Chief Juvenile Assistant District Attorney ("ADA") on February 18, 2021.
The Motion for Early Release asked Juvenile Court to modify L.R.'s disposition prior to his 17th birthday and before attaining the release goals. The motion requested the court to release L.R. from secure care at the Acadiana Center for Youth and allow him to be in "non-secure placement" so he can "attend school daily" and "re-integrate into the community." The motion notes that L.R. "exhibited a passion for learning and has always excelled academically . . . and has goals of attending college" but OJJ "is unable to accommodate children attending school daily and that L.R. does not attend school "2-3 days/per week."
On February 22, 2021, Juvenile Court held a joint hearing on an OJJ Review and the Motion for Early Release (collectively "the Early Release Hearing"). Victim and Grandmother were present at the Early Release Hearing along with their attorney, Ralph Brandt, and other family members. Victim claims that the Early Release Hearing was of concern to him because L.R. has achieved none of the early release goals, L.R. attempted two escapes and successfully completed one escape, and the new Chief Juvenile ADA was L.R.'s attorney throughout the juvenile action and filed the Motion for Early Release.
Victim filed the following motions with Juvenile Court: (1) Motion to Recuse the District Attorney's Office (no ruling); (2) Motion for Production of Transcript for Court of Appeal (denied); (3) Motion to Preserve Electronic Recording of Hearing (denied); (4) Motion for Stay of Proceeding (denied); and (5) Notice of Intent to Seek Supervisory Writs (denied) (collectively "the Motions"). Juvenile Court either denied or refused to rule on the Motions.
Victim's Application for Writ of Supervisory Review asserts the following as one of the issues presented for review: "Did the juvenile court violate Relator's state constitutional rights as a crime victim, under La. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 25, by not allowing Relator's grandmother, as family representative, to complete her statement at the February 22, 2021 hearing?" According to the procedural history provided in the writ application, "grandmother's effort, as family representative, to speak in open court, regarding L.R.'s possible early release, after only a few sentences" was truncated by Juvenile Court and objections were made on behalf of Victim.
Victim invokes his constitutional right-to-be-heard and right-to-fairness during the critical early release process in L.R.'s juvenile civil action. Parties seem to agree that the early release process is a critical stage in a juvenile proceeding. Our Court has been asked to invoke our supervisory jurisdiction as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial