State Of Louisiana v. Demond Franklin

Supreme Court of Louisiana
September 17, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
DEMOND FRANKLIN
No. 2025-KK-01173
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Number(s) 23- 0595, Court of
Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number(s) 25-K-421;
_ _ _ _ _ _
September 17, 2025
Stay lifted. Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., dissents and would grant and docket.
Griffin, J., dissents and would grant and docket.
Guidry, J., dissents and would grant and docket.
CRC
JDH
WJC
JBM
09/17/2025 "See News Release 042 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-KK-01173
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
DEMOND FRANKLIN
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson
PER CURIAM
Stay lifted. Writ granted. Based upon inconsistency among the circuits with
respect to th e issue of whether prospective jurors may be informed that a penalty
provided by law is mandatory, we find merit in the State’s writ application . See,
e.g., Lavigne v. Louisiana, 24-403 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/16/25) 2025 WL 211137, writ
denied, 408 So. 3d 196 (La. 5/26/25) (finding the prosecutor was “entitled to discuss
the mandatory sentence during voir dire in order to determine whether the mandatory
sentence would affect the ability of any potential juror to find [defendant] guilty of
the charge of second degree murder.”). As this Court has stated, “the purpose of
voir dire is to determine the qualifications of prospective jurors by testing their
competency and impartiality and to assist counsel in articulating intelligent reasons
for exercise of cause and peremptory challenges.” State v. Ball, 00-2277, p. 23 (La.
1/25/02), 824 So. 2d 1089, 1110 (internal citation omitted). See, e.g., State v. Frey, 568 So. 2d 576, 577 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990) (finding the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in allowing the State to challenge jurors who indicated they could not
consider a verdict of guilty due to a mandatory life sentence being required upon
conviction). Fundamental fairness requires the State be allowed to voir dire the jury
as to whether they will be able to follow the law, notwithstanding a mandatory
penalty or sentence.

2

La.C.Cr.P. art. 774 instructs that argument to the jury is restricted to the
evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact, and to the law
applicable to the case . La.C.Cr.P. art. 802(1) likewise directs the trial court to
charge the jury “as to the law applicable to the case.” In State v. Jackson, 450 So.2d
621 (La. 1984) and State v. Milby, 345 So.2d 18 (La. 1977), this Court announced
that when the penalty is mandatory, the law requires the trial judge to inform the
jury, on the request of the defendant, of the penalty and to permit argument relating
to the sentence. Because the Jackson/Milby rule is premised upon these statutory
rules allowing argument and instruction on “all law applicable to the case,” we find
there is no legal reason why a rule that a jury be instructed on the actual law should
be jurisprudentially limited to only when one side requests it. The role of voir dire
is important to both sides, and it is a proper scope of inquiry to ascertain if jurors are
willing to follow the law applicable to the case.
We find no interpretation of the relevant provisions that logically limits the
use of these statutory provisions only for the defense to the exclusion of the State.
Thus, regardless of whether the defense desires to have the issue of whether the
penalty is mandatory be addressed, the State is permitted to address the issue during
voir dire, as it entails “all law applicable to the case.”