State Of Louisiana v. Blayson Paul Fife

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NUMBER 2020 KA 0140

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

BLAYSON PAUL FIFE

Judgment Rendered: DEC 3 0 2020

Appealed from the
Twenty -First Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Livingston
State of Louisiana
Docket Number 36276

Honorable Robert H. Morrison, Judge Presiding

Scott M. Perrilloux Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Zachary Daniels
Assistant District Attorney
Livingston, Louisiana

Prentice L. White Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Blayson Paul Fife

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ.

GUIDRY , J.

The defendant, Blayson Paul Fife, was charged by grand jury indictment

with first-degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 30. The defendant pled not

guilty and, following a trial, was found guilty by a ten -to -two jury verdict of the

responsive offense of second- degree murder, a violation of La. R. S. 14: 30. 1. The

defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of

parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The defendant now appeals,

designating three assignments of error. In his first assignment of error, the

defendant challenges his conviction by a non -unanimous jury verdict.' In his

second assignment of error, the defendant argues the trial court' s denial of several

cause challenges during voir dire constituted reversible error. In his third

assignment of error, the defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to include

aggravated burglary as a responsive verdict in the jury instructions.

In the recent decision of Ramos v. Louisiana, U. S. , 140 S. Ct. 1390,

1397, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020), the United States Supreme Court overruled

Apodaca v. Oregon,' 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 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.

1 The defendant filed a pretrial motion to declare a non -unanimous jury verdict unconstitutional.
2 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.

2

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

case is remanded for a new trial. The other issues raised on appeal are rendered

moot.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE; REMANDED FOR
NEW TRIAL.

3