Frank Summers

The case involved Renee Morris, who was initially indicted for first-degree murder in the death of her infant son but whose charge was amended at the trial court's direction to second-degree murder under the version of the statute then in effect. After a jury convicted her of second-degree murder, she appealed, raising multiple assignments of error including challenges to the jury selection process and the sufficiency of the evidence. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court had erred both by forcing the amendment of a valid first-degree murder indictment over the state's objection and by delivering an incorrect jury instruction that misstated the essential elements of second-degree murder. The court concluded that these errors created a fundamental defect in the proceedings rather than demonstrating an insufficiency of evidence, so retrial was permitted under a proper indictment, though the state could not seek the death penalty on retrial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the classification of income from a spendthrift trust established in a grandmother's will for the benefit of her grandchildren, specifically whether distributed and undistributed trust earnings received by the wife during her marriage were community property or her separate property upon divorce. The trial court held that both the $555.18 in distributed income remaining at dissolution and the wife's share of the $11,434.80 in undistributed trust earnings were the wife's separate property because the trustee held legal title to the corpus during the trust term under Louisiana trust law, meaning the income did not constitute fruits of the wife's paraphernal property under Civil Code Article 2386. The Supreme Court affirmed this classification, reasoning that the beneficiary lacked ownership of the underlying trust property until termination and distribution, so the income did not fall into the community absent an affidavit of paraphernality, and rejected the husband's claims for half the amounts or restitution offsets.

family lawproperty

This case involved a dispute between Granville Ray Cleeton and Sonja Petersen Cleeton over custody of their three daughters following their separation and divorce. After the trial court awarded custody to the mother despite her ongoing extramarital relationship, the Court of Appeal reversed and granted custody to the father, but the Louisiana Supreme Court on rehearing reversed that decision and reinstated the trial court's judgment. The court reasoned that the primary factor in custody determinations is the best interests of the children, including stability and the lack of evidence showing any adverse effect from the mother's conduct, rather than using custody to punish parental behavior.

family law

The case involved James Bennett, who pled guilty to possession of a controlled dangerous substance while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in his vehicle. An officer stopped Bennett for erratic driving, observed a paper bag in the car, and looked inside without a warrant, discovering pills; the state conceded this was an illegal search but argued Bennett's later written consent to search the impounded car was voluntary and cured the taint. On rehearing, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court's ruling, holding that the consent was not the product of Bennett's free will, was tainted by the prior illegal search and his knowledge that officers had already seen the pills, and therefore required suppression of the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Humphrey, the defendant was charged with two counts of manslaughter for killing his children while allegedly committing simple battery. The State sought to introduce evidence of prior batteries against the same victims on June 29, 1977, and April 25, 1978, to prove intent, system, or modus operandi. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that evidence of the April 25, 1978 offense was admissible because it was sufficiently similar to the charged crimes and close in time, potentially forming part of the res gestae, while the June 29, 1977 offense was too remote to be relevant. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this ruling on the admissibility of other-crimes evidence under standards requiring distinct similarity.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Thompson, the defendant was charged with aggravated rape and crime against nature after submitting to a psychological stress evaluation (PSE) test during a pre-indictment investigation, during which he gave a recorded pre-test interview admitting to sexual contact but claiming consent. The prosecution sought to introduce the pre-test statement at trial, but the defendant moved to suppress it as inadmissible. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the pre-test interview was an integral part of the PSE test, which precedent had held inadmissible, and that the defendant's release form restricting disclosure of test information without permission also barred its use in court. The court therefore reversed the trial judge's denial of the motion to suppress and remanded the case.

criminal lawprocedure