State of Louisiana Versus Adam Littleton

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 18-KA-354

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

ADAM LITTLETON COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 16-2908, DIVISION "P"
HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

October 28, 2020

FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Marc E. Johnson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR NEW
TRIAL
FHW
MEJ
JJM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Terry M. Boudreaux
Andrea F. Long
Kellie M. Rish
Megan L. Gorman

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
ADAM LITTLETON
Paul J. Barker
Kristen Legendre

WICKER, J.

This matter comes before the court on remand from the Louisiana Supreme

Court pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Ramos v.

Louisiana, 590 U.S. --, 140 S.Ct.1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020)(holding that jury

verdicts in state felony trials must be unanimous). For the reasons that follow, we

vacate defendant, Adam Littleton’s conviction and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS1

On May 12, 2016, a Jefferson Parish Grand Jury returned an indictment

charging defendant, Adam Littleton, with second degree murder in violation of La.

R.S. 14:30.1. On July 28, 2017, a twelve-person jury returned a verdict of guilty as

charged by a vote of ten of twelve jurors. On November 9, 2017, defendant was

sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension

of sentence. On December 4, 2019, this Court affirmed defendant’s conviction and

sentence on appeal. See State v. Littleton, 18-354 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/4/19), 285

So.3d 1181. On December 18, 2019, defendant filed an Application for Rehearing,

which this Court denied on January 2, 2020. On February 19, 2020, defendant

filed a writ application with the Louisiana Supreme Court. The State filed an

opposition on March 5, 2020. On July 24, 2020, the Louisiana Supreme Court

denied defendant’s writ application. See State v. Littleton, 20-303 (La. 7/24/20),

299 So.3d 74 (Mem). On September 29, 2020, the Louisiana Supreme Court

granted defendant’s application for reconsideration, stating:

Reconsideration granted. The matter is remanded to the court of
appeal for further proceedings and to conduct a new error patent review in
light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. --, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583
(2020). If the non-unanimous jury claim was not preserved for review in the
trial court or was abandoned during any stage of the proceedings, the court

1
This Court provided a detailed factual history in our original opinion; we now provide an abridged
history of the relevant facts for purposes of this Ramos analysis. See State v. Littleton, 18-354 (La. App. 5
Cir. 12/4/19), 285 So.3d 1181.

18-KA-354 1

of appeal should nonetheless consider the issue as part of its error patent
review. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2).
The present matter was pending on direct review when Ramos v.
Louisiana was decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies. See
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93 L.Ed.2d 749
(1987).
State v. Littleton, 20-303 (La. 9/29/20), 2020 WL 5793395 (per curiam).

In Ramos v. Louisiana, --- U.S. ---, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020),

the United States Supreme Court found that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury

trial—as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment—requires a

unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. The Court held,

Wherever we might look to determine what the term “trial by an impartial
jury trial” meant at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s adoption—whether
it’s the common law, state practices in the founding era, or opinions and
treatises written soon afterward—the answer is unmistakable. A jury must
reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict. Id. at 1395.

The Court concluded, “There can be no question either that the Sixth

Amendment’s unanimity requirement applies to state and federal trials

equally…So if the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial requires a unanimous

verdict to support a conviction in federal court, it requires no less in state court.”

Id. at 1397. Accordingly, Louisiana defendants who have been convicted of

serious offenses by non-unanimous juries and whose cases are still pending on

direct review are entitled to new trials. See State v. Kelly, 19-425 (La. App. 5 Cir.

7/31/20) 299 So.3d 1284; see also State v. Harrell, 19-371 (La. App. 5 Cir.

7/8/20), 299 So.3d 1274; State v. Rivas, 19-378 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/21/20), 296

So.3d 1198.

Although defendant did not challenge the non-unanimous jury verdict by

assignment of error on appeal, as elucidated and instructed by the Louisiana

Supreme Court on its reconsideration of this case in light of the Ramos case, this

Court must now conduct a new error patent review in light of Ramos. Louisiana

18-KA-354 2

courts have repeatedly held that the jury verdict is discoverable in the pleadings

and proceedings for purposes of the error patent review. See Harrell, 299 So.3d at

1282, 1284 n.14 (citing State v. Craddock, 307 So.2d 342 (La. 1975); State v.

Sanford, 248 La. 630, 181 So.2d 50 (1965); State v. Anderson, 07-752 (La. App. 5

Cir. 2/6/08), 979 So.2d 566, 571.

Defendant was charged with second degree murder. Since the punishment

for the offense of second degree murder is necessarily confinement at hard labor, a

jury of twelve persons was required. See La. Const. Art. I, § 17; La. C.Cr.P. art.

782; La. R.S. 14:30.1. Defendant was convicted after a twelve-person jury

returned a ten to two verdict of guilty as charged. While non-unanimous verdicts

were previously permitted under Louisiana law, defendant’s non-unanimous jury

verdict, which was pending on direct review at the time the United States Supreme

Court handed down Ramos v. Louisiana, became unconstitutional in light of that

case. Therefore, we find that because the verdict was not unanimous, defendant’s

conviction for second degree murder and sentence must be vacated and the case

remanded for further proceedings.

On appeal defendant raised five assignments of error. Defendant argued that

(1) the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

defendant was guilty of second degree murder; (2) the trial court erred by allowing

William Hare to testify as an expert witness for the State; (3) the trial court erred

by allowing the State to introduce evidence of other bad acts: (4) the trial court

erred by denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial; and (5) the trial court erred

when it denied defendant’s motion for new trial. This Court previously considered

all of defendant’s assignments of error in its December 4, 2019 opinion. Further

discussion of these assignments would be superfluous. Moreover, in light of the

defendant’s right to a new trial under Ramos, all assigned errors have been

18-KA-354 3

rendered moot, aside from sufficiency of the evidence,2 which has already been

addressed. See State v. Littleton, 18-354 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/4/19), 285 So.3d

1181.

DECREE

For the reasons assigned above, defendant's conviction and sentence are

vacated, and this case is remanded for a new trial pursuant to Ramos v. Louisiana,

590 U.S. --, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020).

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR NEW

TRIAL

2
As the Louisiana Supreme Court has explained, “The reason for reviewing sufficiency first is that the
accused may be entitled to an acquittal under Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40, 101 S.Ct. 970, 67
L.Ed.2d 30 (1981). Such an acquittal would necessarily prevent any retrial.” Harrell, 299 So.3d at 1280
n.12. Thus, sufficiency of evidence analysis also precedes consideration of whether a verdict must be
vacated and remanded under Ramos. Kelly, 299 So.3d at 1287.

18-KA-354 4

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

MARY E. LEGNON
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
OCTOBER 28, 2020 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

18-KA-354
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HON. LEE V. FAULKNER, JR. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
ANDREA F. LONG (APPELLEE) TERRY M. BOUDREAUX (APPELLEE) THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE)
PAUL J. BARKER (APPELLANT)

MAILED
KRISTEN LEGENDRE (APPELLANT) HONORABLE PAUL D. CONNICK, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW (APPELLEE)
700 CAMP STREET DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SUITE 110 KELLIE M. RISH (APPELLEE)
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 DISTRICT ATTORNEY
MEGAN L. GORMAN (APPELLEE)
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
200 DERBIGNY STREET
GRETNA, LA 70053