313 So.3d 997
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Darryl Wayne Jones was convicted of second-degree murder in 2014 and received a life sentence; this court affirmed but the Louisiana Supreme Court later reversed and entered a judgment of acquittal.
- Jones filed a Petition for Damages for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment under La. R.S. 15:572.8 seeking compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment.
- At the damages hearing Jones testified denying any involvement; he offered no other evidence.
- The State introduced the record of the criminal trial; Jones objected as hearsay. The trial court admitted the criminal-record material and required post-trial memoranda.
- The trial court found Jones failed to prove "factual innocence" by clear and convincing evidence and dismissed his petition; Jones appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court did not err in admitting the criminal record and that Jones failed to meet the statutory clear-and-convincing burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the criminal-trial record in a 15:572.8 proceeding | Jones: trial record is inadmissible hearsay | State: statute allows consideration of any relevant evidence and petition must cite existing record | Court: admissible — the statute permits considering the criminal record and expressly contemplates using the existing record |
| Sufficiency to prove "factual innocence" by clear and convincing evidence | Jones: his uncontradicted testimony denying involvement suffices | State: the record undermines Jones' claim; petitioner must meet high clear-and-convincing standard | Court: Jones failed to prove factual innocence; petition dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Burge v. State, 54 So.3d 1110 (La. 2011) (statute 15:572.8 is sui generis; specific statute controls and governs compensation process)
- In re Williams, 984 So.2d 789 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2008) (15:572.8 permits consideration of evidence regardless of admissibility at the criminal trial)
- Burrell v. State, 184 So.3d 246 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2016) (describes high clear-and-convincing standard for factual innocence; requires new, material, noncumulative, conclusive evidence)
- State v. Pierre, 125 So.3d 403 (La. 2013) (distinguishes factual/actual innocence from legal insufficiency; trustworthy eyewitness/physical evidence can establish factual innocence)
- State v. Ford, 193 So.3d 1242 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2016) (discusses evidentiary scope and application of 15:572.8)