State v. Gasser

• Decision Date: 15 July 2020
• Docket Number: NO. 18-KA-531,18-KA-531
• Citation: 307 So.3d 1119
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Ronald GASSER
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

307 So.3d 1119

STATE of Louisiana
v.
Ronald GASSER

NO. 18-KA-531

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

July 15, 2020

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr., Metairie, Terry M. Boudreaux, Gretna, Darren A. Allemand

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, RONALD GASSER Dane S. Ciolino

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and Robert A. Chaisson

CHAISSON, J.

This case is presently before this Court pursuant to a remand by the Louisiana

307 So.3d 1120

Supreme Court "for further proceedings and to conduct a new error patent review" in light of Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020).¹ State v. Gasser , 19-1220 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.3d 1022 (per curiam ). Previously, this Court affirmed defendant's conviction for manslaughter and his sentence of thirty years imprisonment at hard labor. The guilty verdict was non-unanimous with ten of twelve jurors voting to convict. State v. Gasser , 18-531 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/3/19), 275 So.3d 976. For the following reasons, and in accordance with the Louisiana Supreme Court's directive on remand, we find that defendant is entitled to a new trial. We therefore vacate defendant's conviction and sentence and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ANALYSIS

As noted in this Court's previous opinion, defendant was charged, by grand jury indictment, with second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. Following trial by a twelve-person jury, defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. The penalty provision for the charged offense of second degree murder provides for a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. La. R.S. 14:30.1(B). Since the punishment for this offense is necessarily confinement at hard labor, defendant had to be tried before a twelve-person jury. See La. Const. Art. I, § 17 ; La. C.Cr.P. art. 782.²

Non-unanimous jury verdicts were previously allowed under both La. Const. Art. I, § 17 and La. C.Cr.P. art. 782, and the circumstances of the instant case. In defendant's appeal before this Court, he argued the unconstitutionality of non-unanimous jury verdicts.³ Based on the law in effect at that...