State Of Louisiana v. Bridgette Digerolamo

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 30, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
BRIDGETTE DIGEROLAMO
No. 2024-KK-00287
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN RE
: Bridgette Digerlamo - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) 20-04388, Court
of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2023 KW 1257;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 30, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Cr
ichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
WJC
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
JBM
PDG
04/30/2024 "See News Release 020 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2024-KK-00287
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
BRIDGETTE DIGEROLAMO
On Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court,
Parish of East Baton Rouge
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. The jury’s verdict finding defendant not guilty is facially valid
and was read in open court by the minute clerk. After neither party requested polling,
the trial court thanked the jur ors for their service and dismissed them to the jury
room. The trial court then declared the case concluded , adjourned court, and met
privately with the jury. The verdict was sufficiently received and recorded to make
it final under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure articles 810 and 811.
Once final, a verdict of acquittal gives rise to the prohibition against double
jeopardy. See U.S. Const. Amendment V; La. Const. art. I, §15; State v. Gasser, 22-
0064 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So. 3d 249, 260; State v. Hurst, 367 So.2d 1180, 1181 (La.
1979). When a defendant is acquitted by a verdict duly returned and received, “the
court [can] take no other action than to order his discharge.” Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662, 671; 16 S.Ct. 1192, 1195; 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896). Here, after receiving
a final verdict and retiring the jury , the trial court erred by allowing the jury to
continue to deliberate and change its verdict, particularly after the court violated the
sanctity of any further deliberations by meeting privately with the jury . Likewise,
as both parties agree, the trial court erred by granting a mistrial months later. The
04/30/24

2

trial court’s order declaring a mistrial is reversed, and the jury’s verdict finding
defendant not guilty is reinstated.
ORDER DECLARING MISTRIAL REVERSED; NOT-GUILTY
VERDICT REINSTATED.