Opinion

State v. Bernard

  • 391 So. 2d 1180
  • 1980 La. LEXIS 9538
Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Filed
Dec 23, 1980
Status
Published
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 44.5%

in Brown v. Louisiana, 447 U.S. 323, 100 S.Ct. 2214, U.S. Supreme Court ordered retroactive application of decision in Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130, 99 S.Ct. 1623, 60 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979), prohibiting nonunanimous six-member jury verdicts; hence, 5-1 verdict returned against defendant in a pr e-Burch trial must be reversed

How later courts described this case

  • in Brown v. Louisiana, 447 U.S. 323, 100 S.Ct. 2214, U.S. Supreme Court ordered retroactive application of decision in Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130, 99 S.Ct. 1623, 60 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979), prohibiting nonunanimous six-member jury verdicts; hence, 5-1 verdict returned against defendant in a pr e-Burch trial must be reversed

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Albert Bernard was charged by bill of information with simple burglary, a violation of La.R.S. 14:62. On January 24, 1979, he was tried before a six person jury and convicted by a vote of five to one. Thereafter, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender under the provisions of La.R.S. 15:529.1 to serve six years at hard labor. On appeal he urges six assignments of error, one of which relates to the less than unanimous verdict.

Supplemental Assignment of Error No. 4

By this assignment defendant contends that the 5-1 verdict returned in this case was unlawful.

In Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 , 99 S.Ct. 1623 , 60 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979), the Supreme Court concluded that conviction by only five members of a six-member jury raised such doubts as to the jury’s representation of the true sense of the community as to violate the Sixth Amendment guarantee of trial by jury. In Brown v. Louisiana, 447 U.S. 323 , 100 S.Ct. 2214 , 65 L.Ed.2d 159 (1980), the Court determined that the rule of Burch was fundamental to the integrity of the fact-finding process, and thus required retroactive application, at least to cases still pending on direct review. (See, Powell, J., concurring opinion).

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction and sentence are reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.