State of Louisiana Versus Derwin Walker

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-K-421

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

DERWIN WALKER COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY REVIEW FROM THE FORTIETH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 19,279, DIVISION "C"
HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

October 17, 2024

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY
CHIEF JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson

WRIT GRANTED, JUDGMENT REVERSED;
MOTION TO QUASH GRANTED
SMC
JGG
MEJ

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RELATOR,
DERWIN WALKER
Gregory E. Payton
Remy V. Starns
Mark D. Plaisance
Marcus J. Plaisance

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Elizabeth B. Murrill
Daniel J. Smart
J. Taylor Gray
J. Bryant Clark, Jr.
Stephanie M. Bruno

CHEHARDY, C.J.

Defendant-relator, Derwin Walker, seeks supervisory review of the trial

court’s denial of his Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued by the State’s Motion to

Compel Testimony of Derwin Walker Pursuant to Louisiana C.Cr.P. art. 439.1. For

the reasons that follow, we grant the writ, reverse the trial court’s ruling, and

remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

On September 23, 2019, the St. John the Baptist Parish District Attorney

filed a Motion to Recuse the District Attorney’s Office in “State v. Theron

Williams, Jr., Kelvin Taylor, and Craig Lee, Sr.” within the instant case. On

September 26, 2019, the trial court granted the motion and appointed the Attorney

General for the State of Louisiana as prosecutor. On November 6, 2019, the St.

John the Baptist Parish District Attorney filed a Supplemental Motion to Recuse

the District Attorney’s Office to include the name of relator, Derwin Walker. The

trial court granted the supplemental motion on the same date.

On November 18, 2019, a St. John the Baptist Parish Grand Jury indicted

relator with obstruction of justice in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1 (count eight).1

Defense counsel later filed a Motion to Sever, which the trial court granted on

January 22, 2024. The Louisiana Attorney General on behalf of the State sought

supervisory review. This Court denied the writ application. See State v. Walker,

24-37 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/25/24) (unpublished writ disposition), writ denied, 24-201

(La. 4/30/24), 383 So.3d 929.

1
In the same indictment, the grand jury also charged Kelvin Taylor with two counts of second-
degree murder in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 (counts one and two), one count of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count three), and one count of
obstruction of justice in violation of La. R.S. 14:130.1 (count four). Additionally, the indictment
charged Theron Williams with two counts of second-degree murder in violation of La. R.S.
14:30.1 (counts five and six), and one count of obstruction of justice in violation of La. R.S.
14:130.1 (count seven). Finally, it charged Craig Lee Sr., with accessory after the fact in
violation of La. R.S. “14:(25)30.1” (count nine).

24-K-421 1

The Louisiana Attorney General and the St. John the Baptist Parish District

Attorney later filed a Motion to Compel Testimony of Derwin Walker Pursuant to

C.Cr.P. art. 439.1. Defense counsel subsequently filed a Motion to Quash

Subpoena Issued by the State’s Motion to Compel Testimony of Derwin Walker

Pursuant to Louisiana C.Cr.P. art. 439.1.

On August 7, 2024, after a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to quash

the subpoena. Defense counsel timely filed the instant writ application seeking

review of that ruling.2

Discussion

In September 2019, the St. John the Baptist Parish District Attorney filed a

Motion to Recuse District Attorney’s Office, stating that one of the defendants,

Theron Williams, was the nephew of the former managing attorney in the district

attorney’s office and the nephew of a St. John the Baptist Parish councilman. The

district attorney also stated that another defendant, Kelvin Taylor, was the stepson

of another St. John the Baptist Parish councilman. The trial court granted the

motion and appointed the Louisiana Attorney General as prosecutor. In November

2019, the district attorney filed a supplemental motion to recuse to include relator’s

name in the motion. The trial judge granted that motion as well.

On June 4, 2024, the Louisiana Attorney General and the St. John the

Baptist Parish District Attorney filed a Motion to Compel Testimony of Derwin

Walker Pursuant to C.Cr.P. art. 439.1. In that motion, the attorney general and the

district attorney asserted that relator was indicted for obstruction of justice, after

2
The State argues that relator’s writ application is untimely because the trial court initially set
the return date for August 12, 2024, only five days after the August 7, 2024 ruling on the motion
to quash, but on August 8, 2024, the trial was continued because the State could not locate a
witness. On August 14, 2024, after trial had been continued, relator filed a motion for extension
of the return date, which the trial court granted. On August 22, 2024, relator filed a notice of
intent to seek writs, and the trial court set a new return date of September 11, 2024. Because the
trial court vacated relator’s initial (oral) notice of intent, and relator requested a new return date
within the 30-day period mandated for seeking review under the Uniform Rules – Courts of
Appeal Rule 4-3, we reject the State’s argument that relator’s writ application is untimely.

24-K-421 2

which he gave a self-serving and inculpatory statement to detectives indicating that

he committed obstruction of justice for an unrelated shooting. They further

asserted that relator’s testimony was necessary to the public interest because it was

material and probative as it related to the disposal, alteration, and secretion of

material evidence used during the commission of a double homicide. Additionally,

the attorney general and the district attorney stated that relator was likely to refuse

to give testimony or provide information on the basis of his privilege against self-

incrimination. The attorney general and the district attorney maintained that no

testimony or other information compelled under the order, nor any information

directly or indirectly derived from such testimony, would be used against relator in

any criminal case except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or

otherwise failing to comply with the order. As such, they requested that their

motion be granted and that relator be compelled to testify in compliance with La.

C.Cr.P. art. 439.1.

Relator filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued by the State’s Motion to

Compel Testimony of Derwin Walker Pursuant to Louisiana C.Cr.P. art. 439.1. He

argued that the State’s motion to compel testimony on its face was defective and

absolutely null because the district attorney is barred from acting in a case in which

she is recused. He pointed out that under La. C.Cr.P. art. 682, when the district

attorney recuses himself, the trial court shall either appoint an attorney to act in the

place of the district attorney or notify the attorney general in writing of the

recusation. He stated that in the latter case, it shall be the duty of the attorney

general to appoint a member of his staff or another district attorney to act for the

recused district attorney.

Relator contended that in this case, the Louisiana Attorney General

appointed another attorney in her office to act as attorney ad hoc. As such, relator

stated the attorney general’s office has stepped into the place of the district

24-K-421 3

attorney. However, relator averred that the recused district attorney was allowed to

continue to perform duties as if she had not been recused in 2019. He argued that

this action not only violated the rules of Article 682, it also violated his right to due

process. Additionally, relator argued that the recused district attorney’s

unsanctioned actions may constitute an ethical violation. As such, relator requested

that the motion to compel be quashed.

At the August 7, 2024 hearing on the motion to quash, the assistant attorney

general responded that he and the district attorney both signed the motion to

compel in their respective capacities. He stated that this was not a unique

circumstance because it has happened throughout the state. The assistant attorney

general explained that under La. C.Cr.P. art. 682, the trial court had the discretion

to either appoint a person who would qualify as a district attorney or appoint the

attorney general’s office. The assistant attorney general asserted that even if he

believed relator’s argument, the only thing the State would have to do to remedy

the situation was to provide a “431.1 notice” signed by the assistant attorney

general (AAG). The AAG did not believe that the district attorney for the parish

could act on this case, but thought that the district attorney procedurally could sign

the motion because it is required under Article 439.1. The AAG contended that the

motion to compel was a perfunctory act that the trial court signs when the State

agrees to put someone on the stand and “strip” that person of his fifth-amendment

privilege.

Relator replied that under Article 682, it was the duty of the attorney

general, not the court, to appoint a member of his staff or a district attorney of

another district to act in the place of a recused district attorney. Relator also argued

that although Article 439.1 had been acted upon all over Louisiana, it had not been

acted upon by a recused district attorney’s office. Counsel for relator denied that he

was seeking sanctions against anyone, but stated that he believed the assistant

24-K-421 4

attorney general, acting in collusion with a recused district attorney’s office, was

potentially sanctionable. Relator argued that the motion to compel was absolutely

null and that a district attorney who had recused herself from a case cannot act in

that case. He explained that the attorney general’s office could not ask the district

attorney, who had recused herself, to act in concert with it.

After a brief recess, the trial judge denied the motion to quash:

This is on the motion to quash, finding that the attorney
general’s office was able to sign the motion, the 439.1 notice,
and the administrative function of the district attorney’s office,
she is not deprived of that function when she is recused;
otherwise, there would be no indications in my mind when that
circumstance would exist where a 439.1 notice could ever be
issued.

Relator now contends the trial court erred because the district attorney lost

any authority over this matter when she self-recused and the trial court appointed

the attorney general to act on the district attorney’s office’s behalf. Relator

contends the district attorney cannot sign the motion to compel where she and her

office lack authority. He also contends that because the current motion to

compel/immunity agreement is absolutely null, the State should move, and the trial

court should appoint, an ad hoc district attorney under La. C.Cr.P. arts. 681-682 to

review the motion to compel with immunity so that relator’s due process rights are

protected. Relator asserts that although this issue has been resolved in the context

of judges, it appears to be res nova in the context of district attorneys.

The Louisiana Attorney General argues in response that relator failed to

show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to quash the

subpoena. It further argues the State facially complied with the requirements of La.

C.Cr.P. art. 439.1, and defense counsel’s interpretation of Article 439.1 would lead

to an absurd result. The Louisiana Attorney General contends the motion to compel

was signed by representatives of the attorney general and the district attorney. It

further contends that this was the only way to comply with the express provisions

24-K-421 5

of La. C.Cr.P. art. 439.1. The State asserts that the Code of Criminal Procedure

does not provide for the appointment of a limited ad hoc district attorney acting as

a concurrent ad hoc district attorney alongside the attorney general. Further, it

claims the signature of the district attorney on the motion to compel was a

ministerial act and not a substantive act.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 439.1 provides:

Art. 439.1. Witnesses; authority to compel testimony and
evidence

A. In the case of any individual who has been or may be called
to testify or provide other information at any proceeding before
or ancillary to a grand jury of the state, at any proceeding
before a court of this state, or in response to any subpoena by
the attorney general or district attorney, the judicial district
court of the district in which the proceeding is or may be held
shall issue, in accordance with Subsection B of this article,
upon the request of the attorney general together with the
district attorney for such district, an order requiring such
individual to give testimony or provide other information which
he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege
against self-incrimination, such order to become effective as
provided in Subsection C of this article.

B. The attorney general together with the district attorney may
request an order under Subsection A of this article when in his
judgment

(1) the testimony or other information from such individual
may be necessary to the public interest; and

(2) such individual has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or
provide other information on the basis of his privilege against
self incrimination.

C. The witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the
basis of his privilege against self incrimination, but no
testimony or other information compelled under the order, or
any information directly or indirectly derived from such
testimony or other information, may be used against the witness
in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a
false statement or otherwise failing to comply with the order.

D. Whoever refuses to comply with an order as hereinabove
provided shall be adjudged in contempt of court and punished
as provided by law.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 682 provides:

24-K-421 6

Art. 682. Appointment of substitute for a recused district
attorney

When a district attorney is recused, or recuses himself,
the trial judge shall either appoint an attorney at law, who has
the qualifications of a district attorney and is not an assistant to
the recused district attorney, to act in the place of the district
attorney in the case, or shall notify the attorney general in
writing of the recusation. In the latter instance, it shall be the
duty of the attorney general to appoint a member of his staff or
a district attorney of another district to act in the place of the
recused district attorney. The substitute appointed for the
recused district attorney shall have all powers of the recused
district attorney with reference to the case.

The starting point in the interpretation of any statutory provision is the

language of the statute itself. State v. Jago, 16-346 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/28/16), 209

So.3d 1078, 1082, writ denied, 17-183 (La. 11/17/17), 228 So.3d 1218. A criminal

statute must be given a genuine construction consistent with the plain meaning of

the language in light of its context and with reference to the purpose of the

provision. La. R.S. 14:3; Jago, 209 So.3d at 1082. Words and phrases must be read

with their context and shall be construed according to the common and approved

usage of the language. La. R.S. 1:3. A criminal statute should be interpreted so as

to be in harmony with and to preserve and effectuate the manifest intent of the

legislature, and an interpretation that would operate to defeat the object and

purpose of the statute should be avoided. Jago, supra; State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La.

11/27/07), 969 So.2d 1233, 1242. Thus, where the words of a statute are clear and

free from ambiguity, they are not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing

their spirit. La. R.S. 1:4; Jago, supra.

In the context of judicial recusals, once a motion to recuse has been filed, a

judge has no power to act, and any action taken by that judge is an absolute nullity.

In re Judge Sassone, 07-651 (La. 6/29/07), 959 So.2d 859, 875 (citing State v.

Price, 274 So.2d 194, 197 (La. 1973)). In State v. Neveaux, 23-147 (La. App. 5

Cir. 3/23/23) 2023 WL 3067058, at *1 (citing Price, supra), this Court stated:

24-K-421 7

The theory of recusation is based upon public policy, for
it is applied not only for the protection of the litigants, but
generally to see that justice is done by an impartial court. It is,
therefore, for the sake of appearance to the general public as
well as protection against the acts themselves that a judge be
prohibited from any activity in a case in which he has been
recused.

In this case, Article 439.1 provides that both the attorney general and the

district attorney must request a motion to compel testimony; however, the statute

does not address the situation in which either the attorney general or the district

attorney is recused. As this issue appears to be res nova, we look to the law on

judicial recusal, which states that once a judge has recused herself in a case, she

has no power to act in that case, and any action that the judge takes in that

proceeding after recusal is an absolute nullity. See Sassone, 959 So.2d at 875;

Neveaux, supra.

Here, we disagree with the State’s contention that the motion to compel

relator’s testimony against his co-defendants is merely a procedural or ministerial

act. In opposition to relator’s writ application, the Attorney General acknowledges

that she “elected to compel” respondent’s testimony, but further contends that the

recused district attorney “was without discretion to oppose this.” As the State

tacitly acknowledges, the decision to compel testimony under La. C.Cr.P. art.

439.1 is a strategic decision to be made at the prosecutors’ discretion, and the

language of Article 439.1 A and B requires participation of both the district

attorney and the attorney general. The recused district attorney lacked authority to

make such a determination here. The Attorney General’s recourse under the

circumstances is therefore to request the appointment of an ad hoc district attorney

for the purpose of joining in an order seeking to compel testimony or evidence

under La. C.Cr.P. art. 439.1.

In sum, we find the trial court erred in denying relator’s motion to quash the

State’ motion to compel testimony. Due to the St. John the Baptist Parish District

24-K-421 8

Attorney’s self-recusal, her office’s participation in requesting an order to compel

testimony under La. C.Cr.P. art. 439.1 renders the motion an absolute nullity.

Accordingly, we grant the writ, reverse the trial court’s ruling, grant relator’s

motion to quash the State’s motion to compel testimony, and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this disposition. Our ruling does not prevent the State

from pursuing a new motion to compel testimony pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art.

439.1.

WRIT GRANTED, JUDGMENT REVERSED;
MOTION TO QUASH GRANTED

24-K-421 9

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL 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 JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
OCTOBER 17, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-K-421
E-NOTIFIED
40TH DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY (DISTRICT JUDGE)
MARK D. PLAISANCE (RELATOR) ELIZABETH B. MURRILL (RESPONDENT) J. TAYLOR GRAY (RESPONDENT)

MAILED
GREGORY E. PAYTON (RELATOR) REMY V. STARNS (RELATOR) DANIEL J. SMART (RESPONDENT)
ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY AT LAW J. BRYANT CLARK, JR. (RESPONDENT)
11960 BRICKSOME AVENUE 301 MAIN STREET STEPHANIE M. BRUNO (RESPONDENT)
SUITE C SUITE 700 ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL
BATON ROUGE, LA 70816 BATON ROUGE, LA 70825 LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
POST OFFICE BOX 94005
MARCUS J. PLAISANCE (RELATOR) BATON ROUGE, LA 70804
ATTORNEY AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 1123
PRAIRIEVILLE, LA 70769