The opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2021-KA-0041
VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
PETER A. GRANDPRE, JR. *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******
APPEAL FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 523-303, SECTION “1”
Honorable Arthur Hunter, Judge
******
Judge Tiffany G. Chase
******
(Court composed of Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Tiffany G. Chase, Judge Dale
N. Atkins)
Jason Rogers Williams, District Attorney
David B. LeBlanc, Assistant District Attorney
ORLEANS PARISH
619 S. White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/STATE OF LOUISIANA
Willard J. Brown, Sr.
LAW OFFICE OF W.J. BROWN
4619 S. Claiborne Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70125
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/DEFENDANT
VACATED AND REMANDED
JULY 7, 2021
TGC
RML
DNA
This is a criminal case. The defendant, Peter Grandpre (hereinafter
“defendant”), appeals his convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute
heroin, conspiracy to commit second degree murder, and second degree murder.
For the following reasons, we vacate defendant’s convictions and sentences and
remand the case to the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 28, 2015, defendant was indicted by an Orleans Parish grand
jury of three felonies: count one, conspiracy to distribute heroin; count two,
conspiracy to commit the second degree murder of Rebecca Demuth; and count
three, second degree murder of Rebecca Demuth.1 Defendant’s jury trial occurred
October 21, 2019 through October 29, 2019. After trial, the jury found defendant
guilty as charged on all counts. A poll of the jury revealed that defendant was
convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin by a vote of eleven to one, and
convicted of conspiracy to commit second degree murder and second degree
murder by votes of ten to two. After the verdict was rendered, defense counsel
objected to the non-unanimous jury verdicts.
1
Mr. Grandpre was indicted with a co-defendant, Anthony Eugene. Defendant is, however, the
sole defendant in the appeal under review.
1
Defendant filed a motion for new trial on December 3, 2019, arguing that he
was entitled to a new trial because his guilty verdicts were rendered by a non-
unanimous jury. The trial court denied defendant’s motion that same date. On
December 9, 2019, defendant was sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment
at hard labor, without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence,
for his conviction for second degree murder. The trial court also sentenced
defendant to thirty years at hard labor for his conspiracy to commit second degree
murder conviction. Finally, as to defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to
distribute heroin, the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years at hard labor.
All sentences were to run concurrently and with credit for time served. This appeal
followed.
ERRORS PATENT
Non-unanimous jury convictions have been deemed errors patent under
Louisiana law pursuant to Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ____, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206
L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). See, e.g., State v. Monroe, 2020-00335 (La. 6/3/20), 296
So.3d 1062. Defendant raises the non-unanimous jury verdicts in his assignments
of error. Thus, we will address this error patent below.
DISCUSSION
Defendant assigns three errors on appeal, all concerning the non-unanimous
jury verdicts. Defendant avers that the trial court erred in denying his motion for
new trial based on the non-unanimous verdicts; that the trial court erred in
sentencing him based upon the non-unanimous verdicts in violation of the Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and that the trial
court erred in instructing the jury of its ability to convict him in a ten to two
2
verdict. Defendant argues that the lack of a unanimous verdict relating to his
felony convictions violates his constitutional rights. This argument has merit.
In Ramos, the United States Supreme Court held that jury verdicts in state
felony trials must be unanimous. Ramos, 590 U.S. at ____, 140 S.Ct. at 1397, 206
L.Ed.2d 583 (2020); see also State v. Myles, 2019-0965 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/29/20),
299 So.3d 643. Further, in Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351, 124 S.Ct.
2519, 2522, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004), the Court observed that “[w]hen a decision of
[the United States Supreme Court] results in a ‘new rule,’ that rule applies to all
criminal cases still pending on direct review.” As defendant’s case is pending on
direct review, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos applies.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s convictions and sentences are vacated
and the case is remanded to the district court.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3