State of Louisiana v. Antionette Fortune

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2019-KA-0868

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
ANTIONETTE FORTUNE *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 510-610, SECTION “J”
HONORABLE DONALD T. JOHNSON, JUDGE, AD HOC
******
Chief Judge James F. McKay III
******
(Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay III, Judge Terri F. Love, Judge
Edwin A. Lombard)

LEON A. CANNIZARO, JR.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH
DONNA R. ANDRIEU
CHIEF OF APPEALS
IRENA ZAJICKOVA
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
619 South White Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70119
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE/APPELLEE

RACHEL I. CONNER
3015 Magazine Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70115
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED

NOVEMBER 18, 2020

JFM
TFL Considering the per curiam provided by the district court after our remand,
EAL
and for the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s conviction and sentence is

vacated, and the matter is remanded for a new trial.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 29, 2017, a jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter.

The defendant appealed her conviction and sentence to this Court, arguing that the

non-unanimous jury verdict was unconstitutional.

Following the defendant’s conviction, the United States Supreme Court

determined in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.E.d.2d 583

(2020), that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as incorporated against the

States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict to

convict a defendant of a serious offense. As the defendant’s case was pending on

direct review, we applied the holding in Ramos. However, because it was unclear

from the record whether the jury verdict was, in fact, non-unanimous, we

remanded the matter to the district court for resolution of that issue. State v.

Fortune, 2019-0868 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/12/20), ––– So.3d ––––, 2020 WL

4679040.

1

On remand, the district court issued a per curiam on September 17, 2020,

indicating that:

[a]lthough no formal polling of the jury was taken during the sentencing of
this matter, and jury slips are not available as part of the record, this Court
confirms the representations of both counsel for the defense and the
prosecution as found in the sentencing transcript of this Court, that the jury
returned a non-unanimous verdict of 10-2. As this matter remains on direct
review, and the returned verdict for the serious offense the defendant was
ultimately convicted of was non-unanimous, Ramos applies to this matter,
and a Motion for New Trial should be granted.

DECREE

Considering the record before us and the per curiam opinion supplied by the

district court, representing that the jury verdict was non-unanimous, the

defendant’s conviction and sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for a

new trial.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED

2