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

The case was an out-of-time appeal from a 1963 first-degree murder conviction and death sentence arising from the fatal shooting and robbery of a woman in a supermarket parking lot. Defendant Simmons and his codefendant were tried together after Simmons escaped custody for a decade; the codefendant's conviction was later reversed, leading to a manslaughter plea. On appeal Simmons challenged the denial of a change of venue based on televised coverage of his confession, denial of a lunacy commission to examine his mental capacity, and denial of severance due to the codefendant's statements. The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the motions, finding insufficient evidence of community prejudice, mental incapacity, or grounds for severance, and addressed the admission of the codefendant's later-determined involuntary confession under Bruton principles. The conviction was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Estelle Nash, who suffered the partial amputation of her left middle finger while operating a meat slicer at a grocery store owned by the defendants. The trial court awarded her benefits based on a percentage disability to her entire hand under the compensation schedule, resulting in 150 weeks of payments. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's reversal, holding that the injury was confined to a single finger and that the statute's schedule for finger loss (20 weeks) controlled, as the law prohibits greater compensation for an injury to a member than for its total loss and the medical evidence did not establish a distinct disability to the hand as a whole. The court distinguished precedents where hand-level awards were upheld only when injuries extended beyond a finger and rejected equating finger disability proportionally to the hand absent legislative authorization.

labor & employment

The case involved defendants Michael Coleman and Donald H. Smith, who were charged with distributing cocaine based on an alleged sale to an undercover agent on March 16, 1978, but were not arrested until five months later in August 1978. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to quash the charges, finding that the pre-arrest delay violated their due process rights. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed this ruling, holding that the delay was justified by the need to protect the ongoing undercover operation and to allow time for compiling evidence to support probable cause determinations. The court reasoned that, under the balancing test from State v. Malvo, the state's justifications for the delay outweighed the defendants' speculative claims of prejudice, such as difficulty in establishing an alibi, without a showing of substantial actual prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Lemoine v. Employers Casualty Company involved a dispute between Byron F. Lemoine and the defendants Employers Casualty Company and Peter Kiewit Son's Company. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application for review. Chief Justice Summers would have granted the writ to address inconsistencies among the state's circuit courts.

proceduretorts & liability

The case Abraham v. Lake Forest, Inc. involved an application for a writ to the Supreme Court of Louisiana in a dispute between Anthony P. Abraham and the defendant corporations. The court denied the writ application. Two justices, Chief Justice Summers and Justice Marcus, indicated they would have granted the writ instead.

procedure

The case involved an application by James R. Daboval III to adopt Ryan Michael Perez in Louisiana. The Supreme Court of Louisiana denied the writ application seeking review or approval of the adoption. The court's decision consisted of a brief denial order without detailed explanation of the underlying facts or legal issues presented. One justice dissented, stating that he would have granted the writ.

family law

The case of Reid v. State, Department of Corrections involved plaintiffs Mrs. Joann Thompson Reid and others bringing an action against the State of Louisiana through its Department of Corrections. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application seeking review. Three justices dissented from the denial, stating they would have granted the writ.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Ford, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder after a jury trial and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The key issue on appeal was the admissibility of a .22 caliber pistol and spent cartridges recovered by police through an anonymous tipster without a search warrant, which the defense argued violated state constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence was properly admitted because the defendant failed to show that the items were obtained from an area under his control or where he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, as he was already in jail at the time and no evidence established the gun's location. The court reasoned that without proof of a search or seizure invading a protected interest, no warrant or exception was required, and the exclusionary rule did not apply.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a 1971 executory process sale of property from the estate of James Moore to satisfy an unpaid promissory note held by Samuel Quiett. Alleged illegitimate daughters of Moore, who had obtained a judgment of possession, sought to annul the sale, claiming they were heirs with a right of action. The trial court dismissed their petition after finding they were excluded from inheritance under Louisiana Civil Code Article 919 by the decedent's surviving sister, a collateral relation. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that a judgment of possession is not conclusive against creditors and that the daughters lacked standing. The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of Article 919 but ultimately upheld the dismissal based on the statutory preference for collateral heirs.

family lawproperty

The case involved Delia Smith, who was charged with possession of heroin after police seized drugs from a purse in a car she was driving. The trial court granted her motion to suppress the evidence on grounds that the warrantless search was illegal, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed that ruling. The court reasoned that the officers had probable cause based on a tip from a reliable confidential informant about heroin sales from the vehicle, combined with observations at the scene in a high-narcotics area, and that exigent circumstances allowed the search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Dazet, defendant James Dazet was charged with possession of marijuana and cocaine with intent to distribute after a search of his apartment pursuant to a warrant uncovered drugs, marked bills from an undercover buy, and paraphernalia. He pled guilty to the cocaine charge while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, which argued that the supporting affidavit lacked facts establishing the reliability of a confidential informant. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's rulings, holding that the affidavit provided probable cause because it detailed the informant's proven reliability through independent investigation, recent observations of drugs in the apartment, and corroboration by police surveillance of a drug transaction linked to the premises, along with the informant's own arrest status strengthening his credibility. The court also upheld the five-year sentence as the statutory minimum and not excessive. The decision emphasized that magistrates may rely on common sense and the totality of circumstances when issuing warrants, giving deference to such determinations.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dr. and Mrs. Ostrowe suing contractor Louis U. Darensbourg and his surety for breach of a contract to build their residence, seeking damages including for mental suffering and anguish after delays and incomplete work. The trial court granted partial summary judgment rejecting claims for attorneys' fees and mental damages, which was affirmed on appeal. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that under Civil Code Article 1934, non-pecuniary damages for mental anguish are not recoverable unless the contract's principal object is intellectual gratification, which a standard residence construction contract is not, as its main purpose is providing physical shelter. The court reasoned that any intellectual enjoyment was incidental rather than the core objective of the agreement.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Qualls, Cheryl Qualls was indicted by a Louisiana grand jury for aggravated kidnapping, entered a guilty plea to attempted aggravated kidnapping under a plea bargain, and received a 20-year sentence to run consecutively to a federal sentence. On appeal, she challenged the trial court's denial of a preliminary examination after indictment, along with other rulings including on recusal and sentencing. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 292, a grand jury indictment eliminates the need for a preliminary examination to determine probable cause, as the grand jury process and other procedural safeguards adequately protect defendants' rights. The court further found no merit in the excessive sentence claim, noting that mitigating factors were considered implicitly through the plea bargain and that such arguments were not properly preserved for appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns Donald E. Bell's conviction for armed robbery of a barmaid in New Orleans after he entered a bar, displayed a revolver, struck a patron, and took cash from the register while under the influence of alcohol. Bell was found guilty following a trial where the defense relied on character witnesses and a claim of intoxication that allegedly prevented him from forming specific intent or remembering the events. The trial court imposed a fifteen-year sentence but initially failed to articulate its reasons as required by Article 894.1 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, leading to a remand for resentencing; on remand, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial citing his background and intoxication as grounds for relief. The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the application of the intoxication defense under Criminal Code provisions, which exempts an offender from responsibility only if intoxication is involuntary or precludes specific intent, along with the procedural sentencing requirements.

criminal lawprocedure