State of Louisiana v. Felton Thompson

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #004

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 6th day of February, 2025 are as follows:

PER CURIAM:

2024-KK-00564 STATE OF LOUISIANA VS. FELTON THOMPSON (Parish of Jefferson)

REVERSED AND REMANDED. SEE PER CURIAM.

Griffin, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2024-KK-00564

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VS.

FELTON THOMPSON

On Supervisory Writ to the 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson

PER CURIAM:*

We granted defendant’s writ application to review the trial court’s denial of

defendant’s motion requesting the trial court to instruct the jury that a verdict of

conviction must be unanimous but that any other verdict for an offense committed

prior to January 1, 2019, may be rendered by a concurrence of ten jurors. We find

the trial court erred in denying defendant’s requested jury instruction. Thus, we

reverse the ruling of the district court and remand for further proceedings.

In 2018, the legislature passed and the voters of Louisiana ratified an

amendment to the Louisiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 17(A), effective

December 12, 2018, which provides:

A case for an offense committed prior to January 1, 2019, in which the
punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried
before a jury of twelve persons, ten of whom must concur to render a
verdict. A case for an offense committed on or after January 1, 2019, in
which the punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be
tried before a jury of twelve persons, all of whom must concur to render
a verdict.

A corresponding amendment to La.C.Cr.P. art. 782 included a provision identical to

the amendment above, with the resulting effect being that, in all cases tried by jury,

for offenses which occurred before January 1, 2019 and which were necessarily

punishable by confinement at hard labor, all verdicts reached by the jury required

*
Justice Jeannette Theriot Knoll, retired, appointed Justice Pro Tempore, sitting due to the
vacancy in Louisiana Supreme Court District 3.

only 10 of 12 jurors, including a verdict of “not guilty.”

This scheme based on the timing of the offense was, at least in part, short-

lived due to the United States Supreme Court’s decision some 16 months later in

Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), in which

the Court held that all trials by jury which result in conviction of a crime or crimes

must be by unanimous verdict of the jury. Thus, regardless of the date of the offense,

any case arising post-Ramos, and any case not yet final at the time Ramos was

decided, is subject to the requirement announced in Ramos that a conviction be

obtained by unanimous verdict.

Nonetheless, as we recognized in State v. Gasser, 2022-00064 (La. 6/29/22),

346 So.3d 249, the Supreme Court in Ramos did not decide whether a verdict of

acquittal must be unanimous. Nor did we address that question in Gasser and instead

specifically noted: “Thus, although we express no opinion on this issue [of whether

a unanimous verdict is required to acquit] at this time, even if unanimity is now

required for an acquittal, this rule cannot invalidate a lawful acquittal, even one

implied by the conviction of a lesser included offense.” Gasser, 2022-0064, p. 23,

346 So.3d at 265. This leads to the conclusion, which Judge Windhorst reached

below and with which we agree, that “neither Ramos nor Gasser extinguished the

right to a 10 of 12 jurors acquittal which exists in Louisiana for offenses committed

prior to January 1, 2019. With no such judicial determination, unanimous jury

decisions for acquittals did not suddenly become mandated, and the still-existing

right to a 10 of 12 verdict for acquittals was not inexplicably lost.” Thompson, 2023-

0337, p. 4 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/4/24) (unpub’d, available at 2024 WL 1478154)

(Windhorst, J., dissenting); see also State v. Toney, 2024-0651 (La. App. 4 Cir.

10/14/24) (unpub’d) (Belsome, J., dissenting).

This Court has outlined the rules of constitutional interpretation as follows:

“When a constitutional provision is clear and unambiguous, and its

2

application does not lead to absurd consequences, it must be applied as
written without further interpretation in search of its intent.” Louisiana
Associated General Contractors, Inc., [1995-2105 p. 15–16 (La.
3/8/96), 669 So.2d 1185, 1196.] Constitutional provisions should be
construed so as to give effect to the purpose indicated by a fair
interpretation of the language used, and in the event of conflict or
inconsistency, provisions should be construed, if possible, to allow each
provision to stand and be given effect. Eiche v. Louisiana Board of
Elementary & Secondary Education, 582 So.2d 186, 189 (La.1991);
State ex rel. Guste v. Board of Commissioners, 456 So.2d 605
(La.1984); Barnett v. Develle, 289 So.2d 129 (La.1974).

Perschall v. State, 1996-0322, pp. 21–22 (La. 7/1/97), 697 So.2d 240, 255.

Here, the language used in both La. Const. Art. 1, § 17(A) and La.C.Cr.P. art.

782 establishes an unambiguous right to verdicts of acquittal by 10 of 12 jurors for

offenses committed prior to January 1, 2019, which are necessarily punishable by

hard labor. La.C.Cr.P. art. 802 requires a trial court to charge the jury with the law

applicable to the case, and La.C.Cr.P. art. 807 provides that “[a] requested special

charge shall be given by the court if it does not require qualification, limitation, or

explanation, and if it is wholly correct and pertinent.”

Here, the state charged defendant by bill of information with aggravated

burglary and sexual battery with both offenses alleged to have occurred on or about

October 7, 2016. Because the offenses are alleged to have been committed prior to

January 1, 2019, the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury that at least 10 of

12 jurors must concur to reach a verdict of “not guilty.” We reverse the trial court’s

ruling and remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed

herein.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

3

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2024-KK-00564

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VS.

FELTON THOMPSON

On Supervisory Writ to the 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson

GRIFFIN J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

In allowing for nonunanimous acquittals, the Louisiana Constitution grants

greater rights protections than the federal constitution, which states have the right to

do. See Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 U.S. 255, 271, 141 S.Ct. 1547, 1559 n. 6 (2021);

State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746, 750-51 (La. 10/19/1992).