State Of Louisiana v. Nathan Curry

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2018 KA 1764 R

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

NATHAN CURRY

Judgment Rendered: NOV 0 6 2020

APPEALED FROM THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ASCENSION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBER 29, 597

HONORABLE ALVIN TURNER, JR. JUDGE

Ricky L. Babin Attorneys for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Donaldsonville, Louisiana

Donald D. Candell

Lindsey Manda
Assistant District Attorneys
Gonzales, Louisiana

Jane L. Beebe Attorney for Defendant/Appellant
New Orleans, Louisiana Nathan Curry

BEFORE: McDONALD, THERIOT, and CHUTZ, JJ.

McDonald, J.

The defendant, Nathan Curry, 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, he was found guilty as charged by a non -unanimous jury. The trial

court denied a motion for post -verdict judgment of acquittal and two motions for

new trial filed by the defendant. The trial court sentenced the defendant to life

imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension

of sentence.

The defendant appealed to this court, challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence, prosecutorial statements during closing arguments, and the non -

unanimous jury verdict. This court affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v.

Curry, 2018- 1764 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 27/ 19), 287 So. 3d 1. Subsequently, the

Louisiana Supreme Court granted the defendant' s petition for a writ of certiorari

and remanded the case to this court " 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)." State v. Curry, 2019- 01723 ( La. 6/ 3/ 20), 296 So. 3d

1030 ( per curiam). For the following reasons, we set aside the conviction and

sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

NON -UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT'

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 920( 2) provides that this court

shall consider on appeal "[ a] n error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the

pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence." The jury's

verdict is part of the pleadings and proceedings that this court must review for

errors patent. State v. Anderson, 2017- 0927 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 6/ 18), 248 So. 3d

1 For the facts of this case, see this court' s previous opinion on original appellate review. Curry, 287
So. 3d at 2- 3.

2

4151 418- 19, writ denied, 2018- 0738 ( La. 3/ 6/ 19), 266 So. 3d 901. In this case, the

minutes show that the verdict was non -unanimous, as ten of twelve jurors

concurred in the guilty verdict.

In the recent decision of Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. at 1397, the United

States Supreme Court overruled Apodaca v. Oregon,2 406 U.S. 404, 92 S. Ct.

1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 ( 1972), 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. The Ramos Court

further indicated its ruling may require retrial of those defendants convicted of

felonies by nonunanimous verdicts whose cases are still pending on direct appeal.

Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1406. Thus, as the verdict in this case was non -unanimous,

we hereby set aside the conviction and sentence, and the case is remanded to the

trial court for further proceedings.

DECREE

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED.

z Oregon's non -unanimous jury verdict provision of its state constitution was challenged in Apodaca.
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.

9