Mack E. Barham

In State v. Coleman, two defendants were convicted of simple burglary of an apartment based on eyewitness identification of them carrying stolen items and their presence near the scene days later, after which they were sentenced to nine years in custody. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. The court held that its review was limited to whether any evidence supported the verdict, which it found existed, and therefore the trial court did not err in denying a directed verdict or new trial; arguments for applying a different sufficiency standard under the 1974 state constitution were rejected because the case arose in 1973.

criminal law

This case involved Exchange National Bank suing the guarantors of a loan to Place Vendome Corporation to recover a deficiency after the corporation's properties were sold in federal bankruptcy reorganization proceedings. The trial court and court of appeal sustained the defendants' exception of no cause of action, finding that the bank failed to comply with Louisiana's Deficiency Judgment Act requirements for the sale. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the state Deficiency Judgment Act does not apply to property sales conducted under Chapter X of the federal Bankruptcy Act, which authorizes such sales under the discretion of the federal judge for reorganization purposes rather than liquidation. The court reasoned that the federal proceedings divested the debtor of title and governed the sale process independently of state executory proceeding rules.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedurefederal power

The case involved defendant Clarence Louis Curtis, Jr., who was convicted by a jury of theft of property valued at $500 or more and initially sentenced to ten years in prison; after being adjudged a multiple offender under Louisiana's Habitual Offender Law, his sentence was increased to twenty years. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the theft conviction, holding that the trial court properly admitted the owner's testimony on the value of the stolen truck and that any improper opinion testimony by a police officer was cured by the court's instruction to the jury. The court reversed the habitual offender adjudication and enhanced sentence, however, because the state failed to introduce the certificates of prior imprisonment with photographs and fingerprints required by La.R.S. 15:529.1 to establish the defendant's identity as the person previously convicted.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Gomez, the defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana after customs agents found the substance in his suitcase at the New Orleans airport and was sentenced to ten years at hard labor. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's excusal of a prospective juror who arrived with a crying infant and no childcare arrangements, arguing it violated his right to full voir dire under the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure and Constitution, and the admission of testimony from a state chemist identifying the substance as marijuana. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that trial judges have discretion under La.C.Cr.P. art. 783 to excuse venire members before voir dire for hardship without abuse shown here, and that the expert's qualifications supported his competency under La.R.S. 15:466 with no manifest error in the ruling.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted in Louisiana trial court of failing to stop at a stop sign and resisting an officer, based on two bills of information under state statutes. After evidence was presented, the trial judge refused to allow defense counsel any closing argument and later denied without argument a motion for new trial, then imposed fines or jail time. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed both convictions and sentences, holding that the total denial of closing argument violated the defendant's rights under the Louisiana Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as established in prior state precedent and Herring v. New York. The court also addressed but did not reach the new trial motion due to procedural defects in its form and timing under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. London, the State moved to dismiss the defendant's appeal from a conviction on the ground that no sentence had yet been imposed. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the dismissal, holding that under the Code of Criminal Procedure a defendant may appeal only from a final judgment of conviction after sentence is imposed. The court relied on Articles 912 and 912.1 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure and prior precedent establishing this requirement. The Clerk of Court had confirmed that no sentence had been entered in the record.

criminal lawprocedure