State of Louisiana Versus Lawrence Staehle

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 21-K-627

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

LAWRENCE STAEHLE COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

October 05, 2021

Nancy F. Vega
Chief Deputy Clerk

IN RE LAWRENCE STAEHLE

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF ST CHARLES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
M. LAUREN LEMMON, DIVISION "D", NUMBER 21,284

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Marc E. Johnson, and Stephen J. Windhorst

WRIT GRANTED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE

Relator, Lawrence Staehle, seeks expedited review of the 29th Judicial
District Court’s August 19, 2021 judgment denying his Motion for the Defendant
to be Physically Present in Court for all Hearings. Relator was arrested on May 17,
2021 on charges of second degree kidnapping and aggravated second degree
battery, according to the bill of information filed on July 19, 2021. At the
arraignment and preliminary examination scheduled for July 22, 2021, Relator,
appearing via audio-visual electronic equipment, advised the court that he wished
to be present in court for all hearings held in the matter. According to Relator, his
case had been set for hearing on four previous dates, and he has not been
transported to court for any of those dates. He then filed a motion requesting to be
present at all hearings on August 5, 2021. The district court issued an order
denying his motion on August 19, 2021. Relator timely filed this writ application
and requested expedited consideration. Relator’s arraignment and preliminary
examination are currently set on October 21, 2021. Relator has been incarcerated
since his arrest in May 2021 as he was denied bail pursuant to a Gwen’s Law
hearing.

In his counseled writ application, Relator argues that La. C.Cr.P. art. 834
provides that a defendant has a right to be present at all hearings and La. C.Cr.P.
art. 522(B) provides that counsel for the defense must consent to the defendant
appearing via audio visual conference for pretrial motions or hearings on pretrial
motions. Relator also avers that the district attorney had no objection to his motion
being granted and defendants are appearing in person in the other two divisions of
the district court. In its order denying Relator’s motion, the court cited its
consideration of public health advisories issued by the Centers for Disease Control

21-K-627

and Prevention (“CDC”) and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
(“DHH”), as well as concerns about the substantial risk posed by the Delta variant
of the coronavirus and recent metrics regarding COVID-19 hospitalizations and
mortality rates.

The arraignment consists of the reading of the indictment to the defendant
by the clerk in open court, and the court calling upon the defendant to plead. La.
C.Cr.P. 551(A). A defendant charged with a felony shall be present at
arraignment, except as provided by local rules of court in accordance with La.
C.Cr.P. arts. 522, 551, and 562. La. C.Cr.P. art. 831(A). If provided for by the
local rules of court, and approved by defense counsel, a defendant’s appearance at
any (hearing on a) pretrial motion may be via simultaneous transmission through
audio-visual electronic equipment. La. C.Cr.P. 522(B). In a case where the
offense is a noncapital felony, a defendant incarcerated within the State, may, with
the court's and district attorney’s consent, appear at the entry of his plea of guilty if
the court, by local rule, provides for the defendant's appearance via simultaneous
transmission through audio-visual electronic equipment and the defendant waives
his right to be physically present at the proceeding. La. C.Cr.P. 562(A).

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s most recent order regarding COVID-19
protocols in State courts was issued February 11, 2021, stating that the provisions
set forth in the Court’s January 11, 2021 Order regarding in-person and remote
proceedings remain in full force and effect. Pertinently, the Supreme Court
provided the following guidelines regarding in-person proceedings:

In-Person Proceedings: Courts are expressly authorized
to continue to conduct in-person proceedings on all matters
other than trial by jury. Therefore, for cases involving trial by
jury, courts may conduct in-person proceedings in a pre-trial
and post-trial posture.

[. . . ]

In all matters, Courts should take measures to limit
access to courtrooms and other spaces, with minimum physical
contact, to practice social distancing and limit in-person court
capacity to 50% of the total capacity, as determined by the State
Fire Marshall, counting both the number of employees and
members of the public present in the building at one time.

As this situation is constantly changing, courts are further
instructed to follow all guidelines issued by the Center for
Disease Control, the President and the Governor, and to further
limit access to courtroom and other spaces to the maximum
number of people set forth in any future guideline or official
proclamation that may be issued.

The Supreme Court order further stated: “Courts are encouraged to conduct remote
proceedings by telephone, video, teleconferencing, or any other means that do not
involve in-person contact with consent of all parties and the judge.” The order
also empowered the judiciary to proceed with remote hearings in civil matters in
instances where consent was being “unreasonably withheld by any party.”

2

Considering the foregoing, and acknowledging the public health emergency
that has slowed the administration of justice, we find that the district court erred
when it did not allow Relator to be physically present at the arraignment only.
Relator’s request is otherwise premature and we pretermit discussion of whether
Relator has a right to be physically present at all hearings at this time. The writ is
granted for the limited purpose of ordering the district court to schedule Relator’s
arraignment within 30 days of its reopening and resuming operations post-
Hurricane Ida, at a time and place where Relator is physically present during the
hearing and the most recent COVID -19 mitigation measures and statewide
mandates, as ordered by the Governor, are observed.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 5th day of October, 2021.

MEJ
FHW

3

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 21-K-627

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

LAWRENCE STAEHLE COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

WINDHORST, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s disposition finding that the trial

court “erred when it did not allow relator to be physically present at the

arraignment only.” On July 22, 2021, after defendant expressed his desire to be

physically present at his arraignment, the trial court continued the matter and

relator’s arraignment is currently set for October 21, 2021. Accordingly, on the

showing made, I would deny this writ application as premature.

SJW

21-K-627

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

NANCY F. VEGA
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 10/05/2021 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

21-K-627
E-NOTIFIED
29th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable M. Lauren Lemmon (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Maria M. Chaisson (Relator)

MAILED
Hon. Joel T. Chaisson, II (Respondent)
District Attorney
Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court
Post Office Box 680
Hahnville, LA 70057