State of Louisiana v. Ervin Leanard Walker
State of Louisiana v. Ervin Leanard Walker, No. KA-0019-0421 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. June 3, 2020).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Ruiz 955 So. 2d 81
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
19-421
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
ERVIN LEANARD WALKER
************
APPEAL FROM
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, NO. C25217
HONORABLE LALA BRITTAIN SYLVESTER, DISTRICT JUDGE
************
SYLVIA R. COOKS
JUDGE
************
Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Billy H. Ezell and Jonathan W. Perry, Judges.
REVERSED; REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.
Chad M. Ikerd
Louisiana Appellate Project
P.O. Box 2125
Lafayette, LA 70502
(225) 806-2936
Attorney for Defendant/Appellant:
Ervin Leanard Walker
Amanda McCLung
Assistant District Attorney
Tenth Judicial District
P.O. Box Number 838
Natchitoches, LA 71457
(318) 357-2214
Attorney for Appellee:
State of Louisiana
COOKS, Judge.
Defendant filed a Motion for a Unanimous Jury on August 3, 2018, on the
basis that La.Code Crim.P. art. 782(A) and La.Const. art. 1, § 17 were
unconstitutional and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. That motion was denied on August 7, 2018. Defendant was
subsequently tried by a jury of twelve, ten of whom concurred in the verdict.
The United States Supreme Court recently held non-unanimous jury verdicts
unconstitutional. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___ (2020). (Slip
Op.). The Supreme Court unambiguously determined that non-unanimous verdicts
are not permissible under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
and the prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. (Slip
Op. at p. 26; see also concurrences by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Thomas, JJ.).1
Further, the opinion recognizes, that its ruling applies to cases pending on
direct review. (Slip Op. at 22-23.) Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence states this
explicitly. (Slip Op. at 15-17.) Such review is in keeping with this state’s
jurisprudence. See, State v. Ruiz, 06-1755 (La. 4/11/07), 955 So.2d 81. We therefore
find the Ramos ruling is applicable and it requires Defendant’s conviction by a non-
unanimous jury verdict be reversed. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for a
new trial.
REVERSED; REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.
1
Each concurrence has it own sequence of page numbers.
1