The opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2017-KA-0231
VS. *
COURT OF APPEAL
DAJUAN A. ALRIDGE *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******
APPEAL FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 495-802, SECTION “G”
Honorable Byron C. Williams, Judge
******
Judge Paula A. Brown
******
(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Paula A. Brown, Dale N. Akins1)
Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ORLEANS PARISH
Mithun Kamath
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, ORLEANS PARISH
619 South White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
Donna Andrieu
Chief of Appeals
ORLEANS DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
619 South White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
Christopher J. Murell
Erica L. Navalance
CAPITAL APPEALS PROJECT
636 Baronne
New Orleans, LA 70113
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT VACATED
AND REMANDED
June 3, 2020
1
Judge Dale N. Akins, who was elected after the original appeal was handed down, replaces
Judge Dennis R. Bagneris, Pro Tempore.
PAB
TFL
DNA
This is a criminal appeal on remand from the United States Supreme Court.
Defendant, Dajuan A. Alridge, who was seventeen years old at the time of the
crime, was convicted by an 11-1 vote of second degree murder of James McKenzie
(“James”). The horrific facts of the case—wherein fifteen-year-old James was
stabbed by Defendant forty-nine times, and James’ body was found duct-taped in
an abandoned building—were set forth in detail by this Court in State v. Alridge,
17-0231 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/23/18), 249 So.3d 260.
Prior to trial, Defendant filed a “Motion to Declare La. C.Cr.P. Art. 782 (A)
and La. Const. Art. I, § 17 Unconstitutional because they Allow for a
Nonunanimous Verdict in this Second Class Case,” which the district court denied
on October 19, 2015. On appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction,2 rejecting
Defendant’s assigned error concerning the non-unanimous verdict.3 Defendant
2
Judge Terri F. Love concurred in the result and assigned reasons.
3
The majority opinion provided in relevant part:
2
sought review by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied. State v.
Alridge, 18-1046 (La. 1/8/19), 259 So.3d 1021. Defendant, then, petitioned the
United States Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”), and while Defendant’s certiorari
petition remained pending, the Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana, 590
U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020)(2020 WL 1906545) and held that non-unanimous
jury verdicts are unconstitutional in state felony prosecutions.4 Following the
Dajuan asserts the non-unanimous verdict of eleven to one is
unconstitutional, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dajuan states,
“Louisiana is only one of two states that allow a non-unanimous jury verdict in
felony cases, and the only state where a non-unanimous second degree murder
conviction results in mandatory life without parole.”
A conviction of second degree murder requires ten of the jurors to concur.
Louisiana Constitution Article 1, § 17(A) provides: “A case in which the
punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried before a jury of
twelve persons, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict.” See also, La.
C.Cr.P. art. 782.
In Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 406, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 1630, 32
L.Ed.2d 184 (1972), a plurality of the Supreme Court found that the right to
unanimity in a jury verdict was not a right “of constitutional stature” sufficient to
justify a unanimous jury verdict requirement binding on the state courts. Dajuan
urges that since the Apodaca decision “subsequent case law has consistently
undermined” the court's reasoning.
Presently in Louisiana, the Apodaca decision is still good law. Recently, in
[State v.] Dove, 15-0783, p. 37, [(La. App. 4 Cir. 5/4/16)] 194 So.3d [92] at 117,
the seventeen-year-old defendant was convicted of second degree murder and
sentence to life imprisonment without the benefit of parole. On appeal, the
defendant asserted his conviction of second degree murder by a less than
unanimous jury was unconstitutional. This Court found the error lacked merit:
Our state constitution (Art. I, § 17), statutory law
(La.C.Cr.P. art. 782 A), and both federal and state jurisprudence
(Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184
(1972); State v. Bertrand, 08-2215, 08-2311, pp. 6-7 (La. 3/17/09),
6 So.3d 738, 742; State v. Curtis, 11-1676, p. 23 (La. App. 4 Cir.
3/13/13), 112 So.3d 323, 335) have upheld this procedural device
that a less than unanimous jury (ten of twelve jurors) is sufficient
to convict a person for second degree murder.
Id.
Alridge, 17-0231, pp. 35-36, 249 So.3d at 286 (footnotes omitted).
4
In reaching its conclusion, the United State Supreme Court first reviewed the text of the Sixth
Amendment which provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
3
opinion in Ramos v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court issued, on April 27, 2020, the
following order to this Court:
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and the petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is
vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal of
Louisiana, Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Ramos v.
Louisiana, 590 U.S. ____ (2020). Justice Alito, concurring in the
decision to grant, vacate, and remand: In this and in all other case in
which the Court grants, vacates, and remands in light of Ramos v.
Louisiana, I concur in the judgment on the understanding that the
Court is not deciding or expressing a view on whether the question
was properly raised below but is instead leaving that question to be
decided on remand.
Alridge v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___ (2020)(2020 WL 1978920).
DECREE
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law.” Ramos, 590 U.S. at ___, 140 S.Ct. at 1395. The question to be resolved
was what the term “trial by an impartial jury trial” meant at the time the Sixth Amendment was
adopted. Id. The Court concluded: “[W]hether it’s the common law, state practices in the
founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward – the answer is unmistakable. A
jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict.” Id. Further, the Court noted it
“repeatedly and over many years, recognized that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimity.”
Id., p. 6. “In all, this Court has commented on the Sixth Amendment’s unanimity requirement no
fewer than [thirteen] times over more than 120 years.” Id., p. 7.
The United States Supreme Court continued, and the next question addressed was
whether the Sixth Amendment’s requirement of unanimity applied equally to the States. This
question was likewise resolved affirmatively:
There can be no question either that the Sixth Amendment’s unanimity
requirement applies to state and federal criminal trials equally. This Court has
long explained that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is “fundamental to
the American scheme of justice” and incorporated against the States under the
Fourteenth Amendment. This Court has long explained, too, that incorporated
provisions of the Bill of Rights bear the same content when asserted against States
as they do when asserted against the federal government. So if the Sixth
Amendment’s right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to support a
conviction in federal court, it requires no less in state court.
Id., 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. at 1397(footnotes omitted).
4
JUDGMENT VACATED
AND REMANDED
5