State Of Louisiana v. Trae Williams

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 12, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
TRAE
WILLIAMS
No.2019-K-01690
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 522- 053, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2019-KA-0186;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 12, 2020
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JDH
BJJ
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JHB
06/12/2020 "See News Release 021 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

06/12/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2019-K-01690
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
TRAE WILLIAMS
O
n Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit,
Parish of Orleans Criminal
PE
R CURIAM
Writ granted. The district court did not err in admitting testimony as to
the victim’s telephone call to his daughter of the victim’s fearful state of mind
and present sense impression of the altercation. See State v. Magee , 11-0574,
p. 48 (La. 9/28/12), 1 03 So. 3d 285, 319. As to the hearsay testimony of the
victim’s statement that he had called 911 and thought that defendant and Mr.
Williams were going to kill him, this testimony was not contemporaneously
objected to, and thus the issue was not preserved for appeal. See La.C.Cr.P. art.
841.
T
he ruling of the court of appeal, which vacated the conviction and
pretermitted all remaining assignments of error, is reversed.
However, the present matter was pending on direct review when Ramos
v. L
ouisiana, 590 U.S. —, 140 S.Ct. 1390, — L.Ed.2d — (2020), 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 649 (1987). 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. 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 of appeal should nonetheless consider the issue as part
of its error patent review. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 920(2).