State v. Dosher
| Decision Date | 27 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20-574 |
| Citation | 329 So.3d 914 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Charles Brad DOSHER a/k/a Charles Bradley Dosher |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Karla Shirley-McHand, Assistant District Attorney, Bradley R. Burget, District Attorney, Seventh Judicial District, 301 Bushley Street, 3rd Floor, Harrisonburg, Louisiana 71340, (318) 744-5232, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: State of Louisiana
Meghan Harwell Bitoun, Louisiana Appellate Project, P.O. Box 4252., New Orleans, LA 70119, (504) 470-4779, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Charles Brad Dosher
Charles Brad Dosher, MPWY/WAL-3, Louisiana State Prison, Angola, LA 70712, DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
Court composed of Billy Howard Ezell, D. Kent Savoie, and J. Larry Vidrine* , Judges.
On July 12, 2018, Defendant, Charles B. Dosher, was charged by bill of indictment with aggravated flight from an officer, in violation of La.R.S. 14:108.1(C). The trial court's docket number for this charge was 18-275. On the same day, Defendant was also indicted under trial court docket number 18-274 with illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of La.R.S. 14:95.1, as well as under trial court docket number 18-273 for the second degree murder of his father, Charles Virgil Dosher. Although all three charges were filed on the same day and were tried together, they were never joined in the trial court.
Defendant proceeded to trial on all three charges on October 1, 2019, following a day-long jury selection. On October 4, 2019, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all three counts. Polling of the jury revealed a ten-to-two verdict on the second degree murder charge, an eleven-to-one verdict on the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon charge, and a unanimous verdict on the aggravated flight charge.
On November 26, 2019, the trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence for second degree murder; twenty years without benefits for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; and five years for aggravated flight from an officer.
Defendant has appealed each of his convictions and sentences, raising two assignments of error: (1) the convictions for second degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon are unconstitutional because they were non-unanimous and (2) the trial court committed a non-harmless error when it instructed the jury that it could convict Defendant with a less than unanimous verdict.
As the instant appeal corresponds only to the aggravated flight from an officer conviction at issue in trial court docket number 18-275, we will address herein only assignment of error number two.1 For the following reasons, we affirm Defendant's conviction and sentence for aggravated flight from an officer.
Defendant was convicted of aggravated flight from an officer after multiple police officers testified as to Defendant's actions while attempting to evade arrest following the shooting death of Defendant's father during an argument between the two. These actions include driving at excessive speeds while being pursued by law enforcement and running an officer off of the road.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO:
In his second assignment of error, Defendant contends the trial court's instruction to the jury that only ten members of the jury need to agree in order to reach a verdict was a structural error that should result in Defendant's unanimous conviction for aggravated flight from an officer being vacated and remanded for a new trial. Defendant contends that because studies have shown that juries who do not have to reach a unanimous verdict are more likely to reach a verdict and recall less evidence and that juries faced with serious charges alongside less serious charges are more likely to convict on the lesser charges, he suffered harm. Additionally, Defendant contends the jury instruction should be considered a structural error in the same way that an erroneous jury instruction was considered a structural error in Sullivan v. Louisiana , 508 U.S. 275, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993).
Initially, we note that in the instant case, the trial court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Young v. CB&l, LLC
-
State v. Hicks
...verdict sufficed was harmless where a unanimous verdict was returned. Finally, in State v. Dosher, 20-574 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/27/21), 329 So.3d 914, the Third Circuit distinguished a jury instruction that a concurrence of ten was needed to reach a verdict from the erroneous jury instruction ......