State of Louisiana v. Trae Williams

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2019-KA-0186

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
TRAE WILLIAMS *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 522-053, SECTION “D”
Honorable Paul A Bonin, Judge
******
Judge Edwin A. Lombard
******
ON REMAND FROM SUPREME COURT

(Court composed of Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge
Sandra Cabrina Jenkins)

Leon Cannizzaro
District Attorney
Kyle Daly
Assistant District Attorney
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
ORLEANS PARISH
619 S. White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Meghan Harwell Bitoun
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 4252
New Orleans, LA 70178-4252

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

CONVICTION VACATED; REMANDED

SEPTEMBER 9, 2020

EAL

JCL

SCJ

This matter is on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court for an error

patent review in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390, ___

L.Ed.2d ___ (2020). After reviewing the record in light of the applicable law, we

find that Ramos is applicable and, accordingly, remand the case back to the district

court for further proceedings.

Relevant Fact and Procedural History

The defendant’s conviction for manslaughter is based on a non-unanimous

jury verdict. On appeal, this court reversed the defendant’s conviction, State v.

Williams, 2019-0186, pp. 2-5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/25/19), 280 So.3d 1185, 1187-89,

but the Louisiana Supreme Court subsequently reversed that decision, 1 State v.

1
On June 12, 2020, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued the following per curiam opinion:
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), 103 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. The
ruling of the court of appeal, which vacated the convictions and pretermitted all
remaining assignments of error is reversed.
However, 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 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

1

Williams, 2019-01690, p. 1 (La. 6/12/20), ___ So.3d __. However, because the

Ramos decision (holding that jury verdicts in state felony trials must be unanimous

and overruling longstanding precedent authorizing non-unanimous jury verdicts in

state prosecutions) was handed down while the defendant’s appeal, the Louisiana

Supreme Court has remanded the case back to this court for an error patent review

to determine the applicability of Ramos.

Discussion

The record shows that the defendant was convicted by a ten-to-two vote of

the responsive verdict of manslaughter. Following the verdict, the district court

stated,

Let the record reflect that the verdict was — the result of
the polling is that it was ten, yes and two, no. I find that
constitutes a valid verdict, and I accept the verdict from
the jury. We will keep these polling slips under seal in
the record.

Thus, because the defendant’s case was on direct appeal at the time Ramos

was determined, the decision is applicable and the defendant’s conviction, based

on a non-unanimous jury verdict, must be vacated. See Ramos, supra; see also

State v. Myles, 2019-0965 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/29/20), ___ So.3d ___, 2020 WL

2069885, *1; State v. Donovan, 2019-0722 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/27/20), ___ So.3d

___; State v. Hunter, 2019-0901 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/27/20), ___ So.3d ___).

Conclusion

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).
State v. Williams, 2019-01690, p. 1 (La. 6/12/20), ___ So.3d ___.

2

Pursuant to Ramos, we vacate the defendant’s conviction and remand the

matter back to the district court for further proceedings.

CONVICTION VACATED; REMANDED.

3