State v. Neveaux
| Docket Number | 23-K-461 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JERMAN NEVEAUX |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY REVIEW FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 16-4029, DIVISION "C" HONORABLE JUNE B. DARENSBURG, JUDGE PRESIDING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT, STATE OF LOUISIANA Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr. Thomas J. Butler Darren A Allemand.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RELATOR, JERMAN NEVEAUX Richard J Bourke Elliott T. Brown.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Grant L. Willis.
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Stephen J. Windhorst.
Defendant Jerman Neveaux, seeks supervisory review of the trial court's ruling that denied his Motion to Declare La. C.Cr.P. 905.7 Unconstitutional as Violating the Right to a Jury Trial. For the reasons that follow, the writ is denied.
On October 13, 2016, defendant was indicted in case number 16-4029 for the first degree murder of Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office (JPSO) Detective David Michel in violation of La. R.S. 14:30. On that same date, defendant was indicted in case number 16-6301 for aggravated assault with a firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:37.4 (count one), resisting a police officer (JPSO Detective George Kister) with the use of violence or threats of violence in violation of La. R.S. 14:108.2 (count two), resisting a police officer (JPSO Sergeant Christy Clement) with the use of violence or threats of violence in violation of La. R.S. 14:108.2 (count three), and illegal possession of a stolen firearm in violation of La. R.S. 14:69.1 (count four). The State is seeking the death penalty.
On July 10, 2023, defendant filed a Motion to Declare La. C.Cr.P. 905.7 Unconstitutional as Violating the Right to a Jury Trial. On July 24, 2023, the State filed State's Omnibus Response to Defendant's Motions Relative to Venire and Indictment, to which defendant replied on August 7, 2023. On August 23, 2023, the trial court denied defendant's motion after a hearing. Defendant timely filed the instant writ application on September 20, 2023.
In conjunction with defendant's indictment for the first degree murder of Detective Michel in violation of La. R.S. 14:30, the State filed a Notice of Aggravating Circumstances, indicating its intent to present evidence at trial showing that defendant was engaged in the attempted perpetration of an armed robbery at the time of the offense, citing La. C.Cr.P. art. 905.4(1), and during the offense, defendant killed Detective Michel, a peace officer employed with the JPSO while Detective Michel was engaged in his lawful duty, citing La. C.Cr.P. art. 905.4(2).
La. C.Cr.P. art. 905.4 provides in pertinent part:
On January 9, 2023, the State filed a Response to Supplement to Prior Motions for Bill of Particulars, confirming its intent to establish at trial that: 1) defendant violated La. R.S. 14:30(A)(2) in that he killed Detective Michel, a peace officer engaged in the performance of his lawful duties; 2) Witness 19 is the victim of the attempted armed robbery referenced in the State's Notice of Aggravating Circumstances; on the date of Detective Michel's murder, defendant armed himself with a firearm and followed Witness 19; and 3) the State would introduce all evidence that it had produced to defendant in discovery in support the above allegations.
On July 10, 2023, defendant filed a Motion to Declare La. C.Cr.P. 905.7 Unconstitutional as Violating the Right to a Jury Trial. Defendant explained that at capital sentencing, a defendant is guaranteed a jury trial on every aggravating circumstance alleged against him. He further explained that Louisiana's statute provides for the jury to convict of an aggravating circumstance by making a unanimous finding that the aggravating circumstance is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant contends, however, that Louisiana's statutory scheme provides no mechanism for the jury to acquit him of the aggravating circumstances, even where the jury is unanimously convinced that the circumstances has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, defendant argued that Article 905.7 violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it insulates the jury findings at capital sentencing from Double Jeopardy protection.
In its response, the State points out that other challenges to Article 905.7 have been rejected by the Louisiana Supreme Court, citing State v. Manning, 031982 (La. 10/19/04), 885 So.2d 1044, cert. denied, 544 U.S. 967, 125 S.Ct. 1745, 161 L.Ed.2d 612 (2005).
The State further contends that although it is unclear whether the precise constitutional challenge defendant raised has previously been litigated, it is nevertheless without merit. According to the State, the law requires the jury to find at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt to sentence defendant to death, and the law provides for appellate review as to whether that aggravating circumstance is supported by constitutionally sufficient evidence. The State maintains that the jury is prohibited from returning a death sentence if it does not find at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the State argues that even if the jury finds at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury is still free to decline to return a death sentence.
As to any concern about double jeopardy, the State asserts that if defendant is sentenced to death, the Louisiana Supreme Court will review whether the evidence supports the jury determination of aggravating circumstances sufficient to justify a death sentence. Further, "the state may not subject a defendant to a second prospect of death on retrial of a capital case in which he has received a sentence of life imprisonment[.]" State v. Washington, 380 So.2d 64, 67 (La. 1980). As such, under Louisiana's scheme, the State argues that there is no viable double jeopardy issue.
At the August 23, 2023 hearing on the motion, the trial court denied the motion, stating:
La. C.Cr.P. art. 905.3, entitled "Sentence of death; jury findings," provides:
A sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one statutory aggravating circumstance exists and, after consideration of any mitigating circumstances, determines that the sentence of death should be imposed. The court shall instruct the jury concerning all of the statutory mitigating circumstances. The court shall also instruct the jury concerning the statutory aggravating circumstances but may decline to instruct the jury on any aggravating circumstance not supported by evidence. The court may provide the jury with a list of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances upon which the jury was instructed.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 905.7, entitled "Form of determination," provides:
The form of jury determination shall be as follows:
La. C.Cr.P. art. 905. 8, entitled "Imposition of sentence," provides:
The court shall sentence the defendant in accordance with the determination of the jury. If the jury is unable to unanimously agree on a determination, the court shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 905.9, entitled "Review on appeal," provides:
The Supreme Court of Louisiana shall review every sentence of death to determine if it is excessive. The court by rules shall establish such procedures as are necessary to satisfy constitutional criteria for review.
Statutes generally are presumed constitutional, and any doubt is to be resolved in the statute's favor. State v Fleury, 01-871 (La. 10/16/01), 799 So.2d 468, 472. State v. Hill, 20-323 (La. 10/1/20), 341 So.3d 539, 545 n.3, cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 311, 211 L.Ed.2d 147 (2021).[1] In State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial