Bobby Hampton v. Governor Jeff Landry

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

BOBBY HAMPTON NO. 2025 CW 1267
VERSUS

GOVERNOR JEFF LANDRY;
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CORRECTIONS; SECRETARY GARY

WESTCOTT; ATTORNEY GENERAL PAGE 1 OF 3

ELIZABETH "LIZ" MURRILL; MARCH 18, 2026

DARREL VANNOY; AND JOHN DOES

1-100

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

BEFORE: MILLER, EDWARDS, AND FIELDS, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. 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, is reversed, and the exception
is denied 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. ist 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. lst
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 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,

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2025 CW 1267

PAGE 2 OF 3

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.5.
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, Ine. 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. ha. 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.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2025 CW 1267

PAGE 3 OF 3

Tt 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.

SMM

BDE
WEF

\ OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

Y CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT