State v. Gasser

• Citation: 346 So.3d 249
• Decision Date: 29 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2022-K-00064
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Ronald GASSER
• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana

346 So.3d 249

STATE of Louisiana
v.
Ronald GASSER

No. 2022-K-00064

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 2022

Paul D. Connick, Jr., Metairie, Darren Anthony Allemand, Thomas Joseph Butler, Metairie, for Applicant-State.

Dane S. Ciolino, Clare S. Roubion, for Respondent-Defendant.

AFFIRMED. SEE OPINION.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

McCALLUM, J.

"Fear and abhorrence of governmental power to try people twice for the same conduct is one of the oldest ideas found in western civilization." Cherry v. Dir., State Bd. of Corr ., 613 F.2d 1262, 1266 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting Bartkus v. Illinois , 359 U.S. 121, 151-155, 79 S.Ct. 676, 696, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959) (Black, J., dissenting)). Indeed, in 355 B.C., Greek orator Demosthenes proclaimed that "the law forbids the same man to be tried twice on the same issue...."¹ This principle was adopted by the framers of the United States Constitution in the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that no person shall "for the same offence ... be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." The double jeopardy prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment as established by Benton v. Maryland , 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). Louisiana's constitution provides the same safeguard as well. Under Article I, § 15, "[n]o person shall be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense, except on his application for a new trial, when a mistrial is declared, or when a motion in arrest of judgment is sustained."²

We granted certiorari in this case to analyze the constitutional protection against double jeopardy in the context of a

346 So.3d 253

valid conviction later set aside as unconstitutional. We frame the issue more specifically as follows: when a nonunanimous jury finds a defendant guilty of a lesser, statutorily responsive verdict to a charged offense, valid at the time of its rendering, if the conviction is later set aside as unconstitutional, does double jeopardy preclude the State from retrying the defendant on the originally charged offense? The lower courts found that it does.

After our review of the procedural history of this case and relevant case law, we agree with the lower courts that double jeopardy bars the reinstatement and retrial of a defendant on a higher charge when he has been lawfully convicted of a lesser included offense, even though the conviction is later vacated. We further agree with the lower courts that, in this case, defendant's conviction of a lesser included offense operated as an implied acquittal of the higher charge. We thus affirm the trial court's ruling, granting defendant's motion to quash.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The underlying facts of this case are not pertinent to our decision and thus need not be set forth in detail.³ We review only those facts necessary for our discussion.

This case arises from a 2016 road rage incident that led to the shooting death of Joseph McKnight. A grand jury indicted the defendant, Ronald Gasser, on the charge of second degree murder in connection with Mr. McKnight's death. The case proceeded to a trial before a twelve-person jury in January, 2018. The jury was presented with a verdict sheet listing the crime of second degree murder and three responsive verdicts: guilty of manslaughter, guilty of negligent homicide and not guilty. By a vote of ten to two, the jury convicted defendant of the lesser included offense of manslaughter and defendant was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment at hard labor.⁴ The conviction was upheld on appeal. See Gasser I .

Defendant filed a writ application in this Court and, while it was pending, the United States Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), holding that non-unanimous jury verdicts in state felony cases are unconstitutional. This Court then granted defendant's writ application and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings, including an error patent review based on Ramos .⁵ Thereafter, and in accordance with Ramos , the Fifth Circuit found that defendant's non-unanimous verdict entitled him to a new trial, vacated defendant's conviction and sentence, and remanded the case to the trial court. State v. Gasser , 18-531 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/15/20), 307 So. 3d 1119, 1121 (" Gasser II ").

After remand, the State filed a notice that it intended to retry defendant on the

346 So.3d 254

original charge of second degree murder. Defendant responded by filing a motion to quash in which he argued that double jeopardy and the right to appeal barred the State from reinstituting a prosecution on the higher, second degree murder charge. The trial court agreed with defendant and granted the motion to quash, finding that "when the jury came back with the ten to two verdict to convict defendant of manslaughter, it was a legal verdict and also a legal acquittal of the second degree murder charge." State v. Gasser , 21-255 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/16/21), 335 So. 3d 342, 344 (" Gasser III "). The State appealed this ruling to the Fifth Circuit.

In Gasser III , the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to quash. The State had argued that defendant's conviction by a nonunanimous jury was a nullity, and, as neither a conviction nor an acquittal, could not form the basis of a double jeopardy defense. In rejecting that argument, the court reasoned:

A conviction on a lesser included offense operates as an acquittal on the greater charged offense. La. C.Cr.P. art. 598 ; State v. Graham , 14-1801 (La. 10/14/15), 180 So. 3d 271, 277 ; Green v. United States , 355 U.S. 184, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957). La. C.Cr.P. art. 598(A) provides: "When a person is found guilty of a lesser degree of the offense charged, the verdict or judgment of the court is an acquittal of all greater offenses charged in the indictment and the defendant cannot thereafter be tried for those offenses on a new trial."

* * * * *

At the time of defendant's trial in the present case, a unanimous verdict was not required by Louisiana law in order to acquit a defendant. Therefore, when the jury returned a ten to two verdict of guilty of manslaughter, it served as a valid acquittal of the second degree murder charge, precluding retrial of defendant for second degree murder based on the principles of double jeopardy.

Gasser III , 21-255, pp. 3-4, 335 So. 3d at 346-47.

We granted the State's writ application to determine the correctness of the lower courts’ decisions. Because this case presents a legal issue, we apply a de novo standard of review. State v. Jones , 2015-1232, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/17/16), 200 So. 3d 950, 952, writ denied , 2016-1651 (La. 6/29/17), 222 So. 3d 48 ("As this matter presents an issue of law, we review it de novo to determine whether the trial court's decision is legally correct.").

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Our task is to determine whether double jeopardy principles bar the State from reinstituting the charge of second degree murder against defendant. The answer is found in two equally important considerations, either of which compels a finding that, under the circumstances of this case, double jeopardy precludes the State from prosecuting defendant on the higher charge of second degree murder when he was lawfully convicted of the lesser offense of manslaughter. First, any other holding would thwart the underlying purpose of the double jeopardy doctrine and would run afoul of both the federal and our state constitutions and other duly enacted statutes. Second, well-settled case law reflects that the conviction of a lesser included offense is an implied acquittal of the higher charges. The importance of this concept is underscored in its codification by the Louisiana legislature in La. C.Cr.P. art. 598 A, infra .

Thus, although defendant's verdict was later vacated as unconstitutional, because the verdict was valid at the time it was rendered, double jeopardy attached and

346 So.3d 255

defendant cannot be retried for the originally charged offense of second degree murder. The trial court properly granted defendant's motion to quash.

"The double jeopardy clauses of the federal and state constitutions protect against three distinct abuses: a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense." State v. Johnson , 94-1077 (La. 1/16/96), 667 So. 2d 510, 514. Recognized as fundamental, this double jeopardy protection is an idea "that is deeply ingrained in ... the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence." Benton , 395 U.S. at 796, 89 S.Ct. 2056 (quoting Green , 355 U.S. at 187, 78 S.Ct. at 223 ). As the United States Supreme Court made clear, "[t]he prohibition [against double jeopardy] is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial." See State v. Davenport , 2013-1859, p. 7 (La. 5/7/14), 147 So. 3d 137, 142 (quoting Ball v. United States , 163 U.S. 662, 669, 16 S. Ct. 1192, 1194, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896) ).

The traditional tenets of double jeopardy were explained in Yeager v. United States , 557 U.S. 110, 117, 129 S. Ct. 2360, 2365, 174 L.Ed.2d 78 (2009) as follows:

[The double jeopardy] Clause embodies two vitally important interests. The first is the "deeply ingrained" principle 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, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty..." The second interest is the preservation of "the finality of judgments."

Id ., 557 U.S. at 117-18, 129 S. Ct. at 2365-66 (Internal citations omitted).

There have been "an exceptionally large number of cases...