State Of Louisiana v. Jace Crehan

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2018 KA 0746R

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JACE CREHAN

Judgment Rendered: 7jul: 0 9 Mt

On Appeal from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 09- 15- 0123

The Honorable Anthony J. Marabella, Jr., Judge Presiding

Hillar Moore, III Attorneys for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Allison Miller Rutzen
Assistant District Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Bruce G. Whittaker Attorney for Appellant
New Orleans, Louisiana Jace Crehan

BEFORE: GUIDRY, THERIOT, AND PENZATO, JJ.

PENZATO, J.

Defendant, Jace Crehan, was charged by grand jury indictment with second

degree murder, a violation of La. R. S. 14: 30. 1. He pled not guilty. After a trial by

jury, defendant was found guilty as charged by eleven of twelve jurors. Defendant

filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court. Immediately

following the denial, the trial court imposed a term of life imprisonment at hard

labor, to be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of

sentence. This court denied defendant' s appeal. State v. Crehan, 2018- 0746 ( La.

App. 1st Cir. 11/ 5/ 18), 2018 WL 5785479 ( unpublished). The Louisiana Supreme

Court denied writs. State v. Crehan, 2018- 2024 ( La. 4/ 15/ 19), 267 So. 3d 1124.

Defendant filed a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which

was granted. This court' s judgment was vacated and the case was remanded to this

court for further proceedings consistent with the Court' s ruling in Ramos v.

Louisiana, 590 U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 13905 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020). Crehan v.

Louisiana, U.S. , S. Ct. , 2020 WL 1978930. Justice Alito,

concurring in the Court' s decision to vacate and remand the instant case, did so " on

the understanding that the Court is not deciding or expressing a view on whether the

question was properly raised below but is instead leaving that question to be decided

on remand." Id. Here, defendant filed a motion for new trial in which he claimed,

among other things, Louisiana' s non -unanimous jury verdict provisions are

unconstitutional,'
and he also assigned his conviction by a non -unanimous jury

verdict as error on appeal.

Further, we note that the Louisiana Supreme Court recently remanded several cases to this court
in which defendants were convicted by a non -unanimous jury verdict, wherein the court ordered
this court to conduct an error patent review pursuant to La. Code Crim. P. art 920( 2), even when
the issue was not preserved for review. See e.g., State v. Cagler, 2018- 02015 ( La. 6/ 3/ 20),
So. 3d , 2020 WL 3423802 ( per curiam).

2

In the recent decision of Ramos, the United States Supreme Court overruled

Apodaca v. Oregon and held that the right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment

of the United States Constitution, incorporated against the States by way of the

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, requires a unanimous

verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1397. The

Ramos Court further noted that its ruling applied to those defendants convicted of

felonies by non -unanimous verdicts whose cases are still pending on direct appeal.

Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1406.

Accordingly, defendant' s conviction and sentence are set aside, and the case

is remanded for a new trial.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE; REMANDED FOR
NEW TRIAL

2 Oregon' s non -unanimous jury verdict provision of its state constitution was challenged in
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 404, 92 S. Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 ( 1972). Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 92 S. Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 ( 1972), decided with Apodaca, upheld Louisiana' s
then -existing constitutional and statutory provisions allowing nine -to -three jury verdicts in
criminal cases.

3