The opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2018-KA-1039
VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
BLAIR TAYLOR *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******
APPEAL FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 522-732, SECTION “I”
Honorable Karen K. Herman, Judge
******
Judge Paula A. Brown
******
ON REMAND FROM LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Paula
A. Brown)
Leon Cannizzaro
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH
Donna Andrieu
Irena Zajickova
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, ORLEANS PARISH
619 S. White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
Christopher A. Aberle
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT
P.O. Box 8583
Mandeville, LA 70470-8583
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
Blair Taylor #720597
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Camp - C Jag 1 - Left - 4
Angola, LA 70712
PRO SE DEDEFENDANT
VACATED AND REMANDED
June 17, 2020
2
PAB
TFL
LCB
This criminal appeal is on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court
following Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020)(hereinafter
referenced as “Ramos”), wherein the United States Supreme Court held that non-
unanimous jury verdicts are unconstitutional in state felony prosecutions.
In the case sub judice, Defendant, Blair Taylor, along with two others,
arrived at a house on Burgundy Street located in New Orleans, Louisiana, on
August 10, 2014, and opened gunfire on several adults, teens, and children located
in the front yard and front porch of the house. Defendant was convicted by a jury,
with a vote of eleven to one as to each count, on the charges of second degree
murder (two counts) and attempted second degree murder (five counts).1
Defendant appealed, and this Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and
sentences. See State v. Taylor, 18-1039, 2019 WL 1715768 *1-*9 (La. App. 4 Cir.
4/17/19).2 Defendant did not object to his non-unanimous verdicts at the trial court
level nor did he raise the issue on appeal. In an application for rehearing to this
1
The district court specifically recounted the jury’s polling slips, reciting: “Count 1 is 11-1.
Count 2 is 11-1. Count 3 is 11-1. Count 4 is 11-1. … Count 5, 11-1. Count 6, 11-1. Count 7,
11-1. All as to Blair Taylor.”
2
Judge Lobrano concurred in the result.
1
Court, Defendant raised for the first time the issue of his non-unanimous verdicts
and argued this Court should consider the issue. Defendant’s application for
rehearing was denied on May 8, 2019.
Defendant sought review by the Louisiana Supreme Court, and while
Defendant’s writ application was pending, the United States Supreme Court
decided Ramos, wherein the Court determined that non-unanimous verdicts
were not permitted by the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and the prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment. 590 U.S. at ___, 140 S.Ct. at 1397. The Ramos decision
overruled long-standing precedent authorizing non-unanimous jury verdicts
in state prosecutions. As a result of the Ramos decision, the Louisiana
Supreme Court granted Defendant’s pending writ application and remanded
Defendant’s case to this Court to conduct an error patent review:
The matter is remanded to the court of appeal for further
proceedings and to conduct a new error patent review in light of
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390, ___ L.Ed.2d ___
(2020). If the non-unanimous jury claim was not preserved for review
in the trial court or was abandoned during any stage of the
proceedings, the court of appeal should nonetheless consider the issue
as part of its error patent review. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2).
The present matter was pending on direct review when Ramos
v. Louisiana was decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies.
See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93
L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). . . .
State v. Taylor, 19-00946, p. 1 (La. 6/3/20), ___So.3d ___.
This Court routinely reviews the record on appeal for errors patent. La.
C.Cr.P. art. 920;3 State v.Lewis, 15-0773, p. 9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/3/16), 187 So.3d
3
La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2) states that an errors patent is “[a]n error that is discoverable by a mere
inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence.” State v.
Duckett, 19-0319, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/18/19), 288 So.3d 16
2
24, 29. A review of the record reveals one error patent. All of Defendant’s
convictions were by non-unanimous jury verdicts, rendering his convictions
unconstitutional in light of Ramos.4 Consequently, Defendant’s convictions and
sentences are vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for further
proceedings.5
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s convictions and sentences are
vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4
See Taylor, 19-00946, p. 1 (citation omitted)(wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court indicated
non-unanimous verdicts in felony prosecutions should be reviewed on error patent review and
concluded that “the present matter was pending on direct review when Ramos v. Louisiana was
decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies.”); See also, State v. Jenkins, 20-2, 2020
WL 3071594 *1-*2, (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/10/20)(wherein the Third Circuit, citing Ramos,
recognized as an error patent that the version of La. C.Cr.P. art. 782 in effect at the time of the
time of the commission of the offense, which allowed an non-unanimous jury verdict on a charge
such as second degree murder, was unconstitutional because it authorized a non-unanimous jury
verdict.)
5
The Ramos Court noted “no one before us suggest that the error is harmless.” 590 U.S. at ___,
140 S.Ct. at 1408.
3