Joe W. Sanders

The case concerned whether an attorney, discharged without cause by his client before completing services in a personal injury claim, could recover the full percentage fee under a recorded contingent fee contract when the client later settled. The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the Court of Appeal's award of one-third of the $75,000 settlement to the attorney. The court reasoned that the contract complied with LSA-R.S. 37:218, granting the attorney an interest in the claim and rendering any settlement without his consent null and void, and that such contracts are valid and enforceable to promote access to legal services when the discharge lacks cause. It distinguished this from quantum meruit recovery, which applies only when discharge is for cause.

procedure

The case involved defendant Aubrey Joseph Lecompte, who was charged with four counts of attempted forcible rape arising from separate incidents over two months in which he approached women driving alone on the interstate, claimed a problem with their right rear tire, directed them to exit, and then attempted to rape each after offering to tighten the lug nuts. The defendant moved to quash and sever the counts for separate trials, contending that joinder would confuse the jury given the different victims, dates, and alibi defenses for some counts. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the denial of severance, reasoning that the offenses were of similar character under the Code of Criminal Procedure and that evidence of the other acts was admissible to prove identity and intent under the similar acts doctrine, provided the acts were distinctively similar and relevant to a fact at issue. The court also addressed the exclusion of psychiatric testimony offered to negate specific intent, concluding it was inadmissible absent a plea of legal insanity.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Burch, the State of Louisiana charged Wrestle, Inc. and its president Daniel Burch with two counts of displaying obscene materials under LSA-R.S. 14:106, based on magazines containing explicit photographs of sexual acts. A jury convicted the corporation on one count but acquitted it and Burch on the others, leading to a fine for the corporation. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that no prior adversary hearing was required because the materials depicted ultimate sexual acts, that the obscenity statute was constitutional under Miller v. California standards including contemporary community standards and prurient interest, and that the prosecution properly established scienter through evidence of prior notice rather than imposing strict liability. The court rejected challenges to the jury verdict system and bill of particulars requests as they concerned factual issues for the jury.

criminal lawfree speech

In State v. Williams, the defendant was convicted of second degree murder after a jury trial for robbing and striking a 75-year-old victim, who died three weeks later from her injuries, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole or probation for forty years. On appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the defendant raised multiple assignments of error concerning the admission of a redacted confession, hearsay identification testimony, the validity of a search warrant, and jury instructions on manslaughter and witness credibility. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the confession was properly found voluntary after the state met its burden of proof, any evidentiary errors were not prejudicial, objections to jury instructions were untimely or without merit, and abandoned assignments required no review. The reasoning drew on statutory requirements for confessions and prior case law allowing redaction of references to other crimes while permitting the defendant to demand the full statement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of David Hill Lawrence for second-degree murder after he was accused of causing his wife's death by striking her head during an altercation at their residence. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the jury's guilty verdict and the life sentence without parole, probation, or suspension for forty years, rejecting the defendant's multiple assignments of error concerning the indictment, admissibility of statements to police and a telephone conversation, cross-examination on failure to testify before the grand jury, a witness's violation of a sequestration order, and introduction of a crime-scene sketch. The court reasoned that many objections were not properly preserved or raised at trial, certain evidence was admissible as declarations against penal interest or for corroboration, and any procedural issues like the sequestration violation caused no prejudice to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Oubre v. Hinchman was an application to the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking review of a lower court decision through a writ. The court denied the writ on December 14, 1978, leaving the underlying ruling in place. No reasoning or opinion was issued with the denial. Three justices dissented, indicating they would have granted the writ to hear the matter.

procedure

The case Morial v. Guste was a proceeding before the Louisiana Supreme Court in which the Mayor of New Orleans and a city councilman challenged actions or positions taken by the state Attorney General and the District Attorney for Orleans Parish. The court issued a one-sentence order denying the writ, thereby declining to review the matter further. Chief Justice Sanders dissented, stating that the issue was important enough for the court to address it on the merits.

procedure

The case involved Leonard Barnes, who was indicted and convicted by a jury in Louisiana for distributing heroin under state law, after which the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment plus a fine or additional jail time in default of payment. Barnes, represented by retained counsel whom the court found was not indigent, raised multiple assignments of error on appeal, including challenges to the sentence length, denial of an out-of-state witness subpoena due to lack of shown materiality, a prosecutor's references to taped statements, a requirement that he display his arms to the jury to impeach his testimony about heroin use, and a claim of ineffective counsel. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on the witness or sentencing issues, that the prosecutor's statements did not require a mistrial, that displaying physical characteristics was permissible for impeachment, and that the ineffective counsel claim should be raised via habeas corpus instead. The court relied on statutory authority for sentencing defaults for non-indigent defendants and precedents allowing physical exhibitions and requiring materiality showings for witnesses.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the City of New Orleans seeking to enjoin the State from operating a work release program and special medical unit for prisoners at the state-owned Jackson Barracks facility, which was zoned for two-family residential use, claiming violations of municipal zoning ordinances. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision, sustained the State's peremptory exception based on its governmental function, and dismissed the suit. The court reasoned that while zoning ordinances exercise the state's police power, local governments cannot use them to restrict the state's sovereign use of its own property for core governmental functions like corrections and prisoner treatment. Although a new statute limited certain high-risk prisoners at the facility, the broader claims seeking to bar any prison use were not mooted, and the governmental immunity exception controlled over the zoning dispute.

propertyprocedurecriminal law

The case involved Ricky J. Terrebonne, who was convicted of distributing heroin under Louisiana law and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the mandatory life sentence as violating the Eighth Amendment and the Louisiana Constitution's prohibition on cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of relief, upholding the constitutionality of the statute. The court reasoned that the penalty was not grossly disproportionate to the crime given the widespread societal harms of narcotics trafficking, which include generating collateral crime and addiction, and aligned with prior state and federal decisions as well as similar laws in other states.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a revocatory action by the Martin Lebreton Insurance Agency to annul a dation en paiement transferring the Lamastuses' mortgaged property to Metro, Inc., a secured creditor, after the Lamastuses had also given the agency an unrecorded collateral mortgage for unpaid insurance premiums. The district court and Court of Appeal rejected the claim, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed. The court found the debtors insolvent but held that revocation requires proof of actual prejudice to the complaining creditor under the Civil Code, which was absent here because the property's value was exceeded by senior secured mortgages, leaving no equity for the unsecured plaintiff. The decision rested on the ranking of claims and the requirement that any injury be present rather than speculative.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Weber, the defendant was charged with simple burglary, pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, and was convicted by a jury after the trial court found him competent to stand trial and sane at the time of the offense. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for a re-evaluation of the defendant's mental capacity to proceed, without setting aside the conviction. The court reasoned that the trial judge had relied too heavily on the experts' legal conclusions rather than independently assessing factual issues such as discrepancies in the defendant's statements about his history and charges, his confusion over dates and identity, his reported need for simple explanations, and evidence of mental limitations that might impair his ability to assist counsel or understand the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Robert Valentine, who was indicted and convicted by a jury in Louisiana for aggravated rape and sentenced to death under a statute imposing a mandatory death penalty. The defendant challenged his conviction and sentence, arguing that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional, that he was prejudiced in jury selection and trial procedures due to the capital nature of the case, that certain photographs were improperly admitted, and that there was insufficient evidence of penetration. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the unconstitutionality of the penalty clause does not bar conviction under the statute, that procedural objections were not properly preserved, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court vacated the death sentence and remanded for resentencing to the maximum term for attempted aggravated rape, which was fifty years imprisonment at the time.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Nedds, the defendant was charged with theft of $5,020 under Louisiana law, convicted by a twelve-person jury, and sentenced to six years in prison. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sentence, remanding the case for a new trial, because the state constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure require a six-person jury for offenses punishable by imprisonment with or without hard labor. The court treated the use of the incorrect jury size as a fatal error patent on the record that rendered the verdict null, regardless of the defendant's assignments of error. It noted prior precedents holding that deviations from the required jury size invalidate the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Brasseaux v. Vermilion Parish Police Jury involved a dispute between Shelly Brasseaux and others against the Vermilion Parish Police Jury in Louisiana. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application, thereby leaving the decision of the lower court in place. Two justices, Sanders and Marcus, indicated they would have granted the writ to review the case further.

procedure

The case involved Alphonse Johnson, convicted of armed robbery in Louisiana in 1970, who escaped before sentencing and was later imprisoned in Michigan, resulting in a seven-year delay until his 1977 sentencing in Louisiana. Johnson appealed, claiming the delay violated his rights to a speedy trial and speedy appeal under the U.S. and Louisiana Constitutions, and that his 35-year sentence was excessive. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that constitutional speedy trial protections apply only to determining guilt or innocence and do not extend to sentencing or appellate stages. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, noting the defendant received credit for time served and suffered no prejudice, while rejecting the excessiveness claim as the sentence fell within statutory limits and was within the trial court's discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendants Alfred Carter and Robert Lee, who were convicted by a jury of possession of heroin with intent to distribute after police observed their vehicle during a narcotics patrol, pursued them in a high-speed chase when they fled, and recovered heroin that the defendants discarded along the route as well as additional heroin found in the car. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and life sentences, rejecting multiple assignments of error. The court reasoned that a grand jury indictment rendered preliminary hearing issues moot, that the record contained some evidence from which the jury could infer specific intent to distribute based on the quantity of heroin, its packaging for distribution, and the defendants' conduct during the chase, and that extraneous legal materials in the jury room did not influence the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Wilson, the defendant was initially indicted for aggravated rape but convicted after trial of the lesser offense of attempted aggravated rape and sentenced to forty years in prison. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court considered claims that the prosecution violated statutory time limits for trial under Article 578, that the defendant was denied a constitutional right to a speedy trial, that the trial court improperly restricted voir dire questioning about the burden of proof, and that references to the defendant's prior imprisonment at Angola warranted a mistrial. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the original capital charge set a three-year limitation period that was unaffected by reducing the charge, that the defendant caused much of the delay and showed no prejudice, that the excluded voir dire phrase was potentially misleading, and that any improper reference was harmless because the jury already knew of the prior prison term from admissible evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a timber trespass claim in which plaintiff Boswell sold defendant Martin Lumber Company the rights to harvest trees eight inches or larger in diameter on his property, but the company instead injected thousands of smaller trees with herbicide, killing them. The district court awarded Boswell $5,000 in general damages for mental anguish and related harms, but the Court of Appeal reduced the award to $500. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed that reduction and reinstated the full $5,000, holding that Civil Code article 1934(3) grants the trial judge broad discretion in assessing general damages that cannot be precisely quantified and that appellate review is limited to determining whether the record clearly shows an abuse of that discretion. The court found the trial award supported by evidence of the extensive damage to the plaintiff's land and its effect on his use and enjoyment of the property.

propertytorts & liability

In State v. Wilson, the defendant was convicted of armed robbery by a twelve-person jury and sentenced as a fourth offender to 110 years in prison. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress a watch and ring seized from him during his arrest, arguing that police had entered his girlfriend's residence illegally. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the girlfriend voluntarily consented to the officers' entry, questioning, and presence while awaiting the defendant's return, which provided a lawful basis for the arrest and search incident to it. The court vacated the sentence as illegal under the habitual offender law and remanded for resentencing to 99 years, the longest term available for a first conviction of armed robbery.

criminal lawprocedure