Burge v. State
54 So. 3d 1110
| La. | 2011Background
- Burge was convicted of second-degree murder in 1986 and sentenced to life; after discovery of exculpatory materials suppressed by detective Hale, a new trial was granted in 1990 and Burge was acquitted at the second trial in 1992.
- Hale admitted hiding investigatory reports, tapes, and statements that could have impeached witnesses; Burge’s counsel filed a post-conviction relief petition alleging Brady violations in 1989.
- In 2007 Burge filed a Wrongful Conviction Compensation application under LSA-R.S. 15:572.8 seeking compensation for time imprisoned from 1986 to 1992; the State moved to dismiss for insufficiency of service.
- The 2005 version of 15:572.8 did not require service; the 2007 amendment changed process to a petition, requiring notice to the Attorney General and the district attorney, with the court to serve those parties.
- The court held that 15:572.8 is sui generis and governs notice through the court, not by ordinary service rules; LSA-R.S. 13:5107 does not apply to wrongful conviction compensation; the appellate court erred in applying those rules and the matter should be remanded for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service requirements apply to 15:572.8 petitions. | Burge followed 2005 rules without requiring service. | State contends service per 13:5107 applies. | The statute is sui generis; service rules do not apply. |
| Whether the 2007 amendment governs notice and defendants in compensation proceedings. | Burge complied with 2007 procedures. | State argues applicable procedural requirements were not met. | 2007 amendments govern; notices are court-driven to AG and district attorney. |
| Whether 13:5107 applies to wrongful conviction compensation proceedings. | 13:5107 does not govern compensation applications. | State would rely on 13:5107 for dismissal mechanics. | 13:5107 does not apply; 15:572.8 controls. |
| Whether 15:572.8's notice scheme requires service of the petition. | Petition suffices with statutory notice. | State argues traditional service is required. | Petition-based notice under 15:572.8 governs; court must serve AG and DA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (S. Ct. 1963) (suppression of exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (S. Ct. 1995) (favorable evidence and its suppression affect guilt or innocence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (S. Ct. 1985) (material exculpatory evidence must be disclosed)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (S. Ct. 1976) (standard for Brady-type disclosures)
- State v. Sharp, 939 So.2d 418 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2006) (specific statute controls over general statute)
- State v. Campbell, 877 So.2d 112 (La. 2004) (specificity in statutory interpretation governs conflicts)
- Burge v. Louisiana, 43 So.3d 235 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2010) (court rejected earlier service reasoning; remand urged)