Bobby Hampton v. Governor Jeff Landry (2)

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

BOBBY HAMPTON NO. 2025 CW 1267
VERSUS PAGE 1 OF 2

GOVERNOR JEFF LANDRY;
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CORRECTIONS; SECRETARY GARY
WESTCOTT; ATTORNEY GENERAL
ELIZABETH "LIZ" MURRILL;
DARREL VANNOY; AND JOHN DOES
1-100

MARCH 26, 2026

In Re: Bobby Hampton, applying for supervisory writs, 19th
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 759757.

BEFORE: THERIOT, MILLER, EDWARDS, FIELDS, AND HAGGERTY,! JJ.

WRIT DENIED.
MRT
BDE
BDH

Miller and Fields, JJ., dissent and would grant the writ. We
would reverse the portion of the November 6, 2025 judgment which
granted defendants’ exception of no cause of action, in part, as to
counts I, II, III, and VII, and deny the exception as to those four
counts. When it can reasonably do so, a court should maintain a
petition against an exception of no cause of action to afford a
litigant an opportunity to present his evidence. State v. OptumRx,
Inc., 2024-0543 (La. App. lst Cir. 11/21/25), 425 So.3d 380, 386.
Pleadings must be construed reasonably so as to afford litigants their
day in court, to arrive at the truth, and to do substantial justice.
Kuebler v. Martin, 578 So.2d 113 (La. 1991). An exception of no cause
of action is likely to be granted only in the unusual case in which
the plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the
petition that there is some insurmountable bar to relief. CamSoft Data
Sys., Inc. v. S. Elecs. Supply, Inc., 2015-1260 (La. App. Ist Cir.
9/23/15), 182 So.3d 1009, 1016. The Louisiana Supreme Court advises
measured consideration in capital cases: “Time and time again the
United States Supreme Court has reminded us ‘death is different’
because that sentence, once imposed, cannot be rectified. This Court
has acknowledged there is a ‘heightened need for reliability in the
determination that a death sentence is the appropriate punishment in
a specific case.’ It is incumbent on our system of justice to ensure
the imposition of the sentence is properly applied, not in haste, but
also without delay for the sake of delay. Prudence dictates that
proceedings must be expedited in a logical manner which ensures the
rights of both the State and the defendant are properly protected and
not lost in an effort to quickly resolve the matter.” State v. Draughn,
2025-00505 (La. 4/28/25), 408 So.3d 192, 193 (citations omitted).
Interpreting the language of the petition reasonably and in favor of
maintaining its sufficiency and affording plaintiff the opportunity
to present evidence at trial, we cannot conclude with appropriate
certainty at this stage of the proceedings that plaintiff will be

+ Haggerty, J., serving pro tempore, by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme
Court.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2025 CW 1267
PAGE 2 OF 2

unable to show that La. R.S. 15:569 violates the ex post facto clause
of the Louisiana Constitution, the nondelegation doctrine of the
Louisiana Constitution, the plaintiff’s due process rights under the
Louisiana Constitution, and the clause prohibiting retroactivity. La.
Const. art. II, § 23; art. II, § 2 and art. I, § 2; La. Civ. Code art.
6. Defendants failed to show that plaintiff cannot support his
allegations that La. R.S. 15:569 violates the ex post facto clause and
the prohibition of retroactivity, because courts have not yet
determined whether the addition of nitrogen hypoxia as an execution
method in La. R.S. 15:569 violates Hampton’s right to humane treatment
or if it imposes significantly more pain than lethal injection. The
degree of suffering imposed by nitrogen hypoxia is a question of fact.
If nitrogen hypoxia imposes a greater degree of suffering than lethal
injection, the application of La. R.S. 15:569 might disturb a right
Hampton possessed at the time of his sentencing, by imposing a
punishment that is harsher than those legal at that time. Nitrogen
hypoxia might therefore be forbidden by the ex post facto clause and
retroactivity prohibition. Massey v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Safety &
Corr., 2013-2789 (La. 10/15/14) 149 So.3d 780, 783; Gladstone Area
P'ship, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 54,349 (La. App. 2d Cir. 4/13/22),
337 So.3d 589; State v. Hoffman, 2025-00327 (La. 3/18/25), 402 So.3d
1214, 1218 (Guidry, J., dissenting); Zagorski v. Haslam, No. 3:18-CV-
01035, 2018 WL 4931939, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 11, 2018). Likewise,
defendants failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that
plaintiff cannot show that La. R.S. 15:569 violated the nondelegation
doctrine because La. R.S. 15:569 grants the executive branch of the
Louisiana government, through the Secretary of the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections, legislative power without safeguards
to control details of the application of the death penalty. La. Const.
art. II, § 2 and art. I, § 2; State v. Miller, 2003-0206 (La. 10/21/03),
857 So.2d 423, 430; Hobbs v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 293, 15, 412 S.W.3d 844,
854 (2012). Similarly, defendants did not illustrate with sufficient
certainty that plaintiff cannot demonstrate that La. R.S. 15:569
violates his due process rights because its procedures are
impermissibly vague, and it lacks any definition of nitrogen hypoxia.
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294,
2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). Hampton’s petition raises both factual
and legal concerns, and therefore, the litigant should be allowed to
proceed beyond these exceptions. It behooves the entire legal system
to resolve these questions in a deliberate, sober, and timely fashion
rather than in the last waning hours before an execution. Moving
forward without a disposition on the merits leaves the body of law on
this issue with only writ denials, which establish no precedential
value. See State v. Brown, 2016-0998 (La. 1/28/22), 347 So.3d 745,
833, cert. denied, U.S. , 143 S.Ct. 886, 215 L.Ed.2d 404 (2023)

(stating that “a writ denial by this court has no precedential value”);
see Bankers Insurance Company v. Donelon, 2023-0871 (La. App. lst Cir.
3/22/24), 388 So.3d 411, 416 n.3 (noting that “a writ denial by an
appellate court or the supreme court is not precedential for any

purpose”); see also State v. Hoffman, 2025-00327 (La. 3/18/25), 402
So.3d 1214.

ERR OF COUR
FOR THE COURT