State v. Bazile

• Decision Date: 07 May 2013
• Docket Number: NO. 2012-KA-2243,2012-KA-2243
• Parties: STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TIMOTHY BAZILE
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TIMOTHY BAZILE

NO. 2012-KA-2243

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

Dated: May 7, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE

NEWS RELEASE #027

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 7th day of May, 2013, are as follows:

BY CLARK, J.:

2012-KA-2243

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TIMOTHY BAZILE (Parish of East Baton Rouge)

(Motion to Declare Constitutional Amendment Unconstitutional)

For the reasons assigned, we find the provisions of La. Const.

art. I, Section 17(a), at issue herein, are constitutional under

the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and

the state constitution. The district court erred in granting the

defendant's motion to have La. Const. art. I, Section 17 (a)

declared unconstitutional; the district court's ruling is

reversed and vacated. The case is remanded to the district court

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HUGHES, J. dissents with reasons.

ON APPEAL

FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,

FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

HONORABLE MICHAEL R. ERWIN, JUDGE

CLARK, Justice.

This matter is before us pursuant to this court's appellate jurisdiction over cases in which a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional by the district court. La. Const. art. V, § 5(D). The trial court granted the defendant's "Motion to Declare Constitutional Amendment Unconstitutional" on the basis that a provision of La. Const. art. I, § 17(A), amended in 2010 and applicable here, violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. For the reasons that follow, we find the district court's ruling to be erroneous. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the district court's ruling granting the defendant's motion, and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our interpretation of the state constitution.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is the second time this matter has been before our court. The defendant, Timothy Bazile, was indicted by the East Baton Rouge Parish grand jury for the second degree murder of his wife, Kendra Bazile. The indictment was returned on October 13, 2010 and the defendant was arraigned on October 15,2010. On May 18, 2011, the district court set a trial date of October 3, 2011;¹ notice of the trial date was given to the defendant and his counsel in open court.

At a hearing held on September 19, 2011, the defendant waived his right to a jury trial after a colloquy with the district judge. The state objected to the defendant's action, arguing the waiver of the defendant's right to a jury was made less than forty-five days before trial, in violation of the amendment to La. Const. art. I, §17(A). The record shows the district judge did not resolve this dispute at that time in spite of the outstanding objection.

On the day set for trial, October 3, 2011, the defense asked for a continuance on the ground the state failed to fully comply with discovery requests. The prosecutor objected to the request for continuance, arguing the defense received open file discovery, the state was not in possession of some of the items requested, and the prosecution was under no requirement to produce other items requested. Overruling the prosecutor's objection, the district court set a new trial date of October 11, 2011. Giving effect to the defendant's earlier jury trial waiver, the new trial was set to proceed before the district judge.

The prosecutor again objected, arguing the defense failed to waive trial by jury within the required time limitations under the state constitution. In an attempt to overcome the state's objection, defense counsel offered to re-set trial beyond forty-five days from the September 19, 2011 waiver. The prosecutor objected to this offer, arguing a continuance does not extend the forty-five day period provided by the state constitution. The prosecutor contended whenever the trial was held, the mode of trial would be a trial before a jury since the forty-five day period contemplated by the state constitution had already run before the original October 3, 2011 trial date.

In response to the prosecutor's objection, the district court orally ruled a criminal defendant's right to a trial by judge is implicit in the federal constitutional right to a jury trial, to which the state constitutional procedure must yield. The district judge held a defendant has a right to waive a jury trial at any time before trial under the federal constitution; thus, the state constitutional provision which imposes limits on that right was unconstitutional. Subsequent to these oral comments from the bench, on October 5, 2011, the district judge provided additional, written reasons for his ruling, explaining his belief that La. Const. art. I, §17(A) effectively deprived a criminal defendant of a substantive federal constitutional right and due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The state took a writ to the court of appeal, which was denied without comment by a vote of 2-1. State v. Bazile, 2011-1848 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/7/11) (unpub'd). The state then applied to this court for review, which granted the state's application. State v. Bazille, 2011-2201 (La. 10/14/11); 74 So.3d 728.²

After our review of the record, this court concluded the constitutionality of La. Const. art. I, §17(A) was not raised by the parties in the district court, but was, rather, raised sua sponte by the district judge. State v. Bazile, 2011-2201 p. 4 (La. 1/24/12); 85 So.2d 1, 3 (hereinafter referred to as "Bazile I"). As such, we held in Bazile I "the procedural posture of this case precludes a decision being made regarding the constitutionality of this provision of the Louisiana Constitution," and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. Id., 2011-2201, p. 7; 85 So.2d at 5; see State v. Schoening, 2000-0903, p. 3 (La. 10/17/00); 770 So.2d 762, 764, quoting Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc., 1994-1238, p. 8 (La. 11/30/94); 646 So.2d 859, 864-865 ("This court has stated that, while there is no single required procedure or type of proceeding for attacking a statute'sconstitutionality, 'the long-standing jurisprudential rule of law is ... the unconstitutionality of a statute must be specially pleaded and the grounds for the claim particularized.'").

When the matter was once more before the district court, the defendant filed a "Motion to Declare Constitutional Amendment Unconstitutional," claiming La. Const. art. I, § 17(A), as amended in 2010, violated the federal constitution. The state filed a written opposition to the motion, which was set for hearing on July 5, 2012. Oral argument was provided by the defense and the prosecution at the hearing, after which the district court took the matter under advisement. On August 6, 2012, the district court granted the defendant's motion, finding La. Const. art. I, § 17(A) violated the constitution. In oral reasons for his ruling, the district judge stated:

Basically, I'm ruling that the forty-five day prior to trial denies the defendant his true right to choose between a bench or a jury trial, because often times in real life practice, discovery and other materials are still being exchanged in that forty-five days. So, if the defendant is forced to make a decision forty-five days before the trial and it's irrevocable, then he may later discover information that would influence his decision on whether or not to try the case to a jury or try the case to the judge alone. And that seems to be - - makes it giving the state the right to force the defendant to make a choice as to whether or not he wants a jury trial or a judge trial without all of the information that he could possibly receive to be fully informed to make that decision. And, in addition to that, during the legislative discussion on this matter there was a great deal of discussion about how this amendment would save money in rural parishes, because they would have advance notice of how many prospective jurors they would need to be summoned for a particular date. And, in my opinion[,] it's a sad day in the history in the State of Louisiana if the justice and due process of law are dictated by costs.

The determination to be tried by a judge or jury should rest solely with the defendant, and the ... state should not have a role in that decision making process. This choice is a right of the defendant and he should be afforded that right without any time limitations. I do not believe that the true intent of the amendment was to give the state the right to choose the method by which a defendant would stand trial, and by imposing that forty-five days that's exactly what has happened.

So, I rule ... the constitutional amendment [is]unconstitutional.³

The district court also issued written reasons, substantially similar to the oral reasons for judgment provided on August 6, 2011, and to the written reasons previously issued in October 2011.⁴

This direct appeal is before us under La. Const. art. V, § 5(D) because a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional.⁵ The sole issue before us is whether the district court erred in granting Bazile's motion.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Relevant History and Purpose of Constitutional Amendment

In State v. Chinn, 2011-2043 (La. 2/10/12); 92 So.3d 324, a case considered at the same time as Bazile I, we granted certiorari to resolve a dispute as to the proper application of La. Const. art. I, § 17. In doing so, the court discussed the relevant history and purpose of the constitutional amendment which resulted in the present version of La. Const. art. I, § 17(A). That discussion is pertinent to the issue raised here and is reproduced below to provide the context for our present analysis:

Before its 2010 amendment, La. Const. art. I, § 17(A) provided in pertinent part:

Except in capital cases, a defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a trial by jury.

The time for

...