318 So.3d 862
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Andrew Jerome Francis was indicted for first-degree rape (count 1), indecent behavior with juveniles (count 2), and failure to register as a sex offender (count 3); counts 1–2 proceeded to jury trial after the court severed count 3.
- Victim K.S., who was 11 at the time of the alleged offenses, gave consistent statements in a Children’s Advocacy Center interview and to a pediatrician describing multiple incidents of oral and anal sexual abuse; physical exam was nonconclusive but clinicians diagnosed child sexual abuse based on K.S.’s statements.
- Investigators recovered pornographic videos from the grandmother’s phone and baby oil from the defendant’s residence; the victim testified the defendant showed him homosexual porn and used oil as lubricant during assaults.
- Jury returned non‑unanimous guilty verdicts on counts 1 and 2 (record shows 10–2 oral poll); defendant was sentenced to life without parole on count 1 and 25 years on count 2 (concurrent); count 3 was resolved separately by no contest plea and concurrent sentence.
- Defendant obtained a court-granted out-of-time appeal via post-conviction relief; on appeal he challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence and (2) constitutionality of non‑unanimous verdicts post‑Ramos.
- The court affirmed that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions but held Ramos applies to this pending direct appeal, found the 10–2 verdicts unconstitutional, vacated counts 1–2 and remanded for a new trial; count 3 was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support rape and indecent behavior convictions | State: Victim’s CAC interview, trial testimony, medical interview, phone extraction and physical evidence supported convictions | Francis: Victim fabricated story after being accused of being gay; timeline and phone-access evidence undercut credibility | Held: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt; sufficiency claim denied (no acquittal) |
| Validity of non‑unanimous jury verdicts under the Sixth Amendment | State: (implicit) verdicts presumed valid absent preserved objection; alternatively argued Ramos not retroactive if convictions were final | Francis: 10–2 verdicts violate the Sixth Amendment under Ramos; conviction must be vacated | Held: Ramos requires unanimous verdicts for serious offenses and applies to cases pending on direct review; 10–2 verdicts unconstitutional—counts 1–2 vacated and remanded for new trial |
| Retroactivity/finality of Ramos (whether Ramos applies here) | State: Convictions were final before Ramos because defendant failed to timely file a direct appeal; Ramos should not apply | Francis: Obtained court-ordered out-of-time appeal; appeal was pending when Ramos issued so Ramos controls | Held: Defendant’s out‑of‑time appeal was granted and the appeal was pending on direct review when Ramos issued; Ramos governs and requires unanimous verdicts on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- 443 U.S. 307 Jackson v. Virginia (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- 140 S. Ct. 1390 Ramos v. Louisiana (Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses; applies to cases pending on direct review)
- 603 So. 2d 731 State v. Hearold (La. 1992) (discusses application of Jackson and acquittal vs. new trial remedies)
- 800 So. 2d 790 State v. Williams (La. 2001) (statutory parole/probation restrictions deemed part of sentence even if omitted at sentencing)
- 479 U.S. 314 Griffith v. Kentucky (new constitutional rules apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review)
- 476 U.S. 79 Batson v. Kentucky (framework for peremptory challenge equal-protection claims)
- 406 U.S. 404 Apodaca v. Oregon (overruled by Ramos regarding non-unanimous verdicts)
- 283 F.3d 657 Cockerham v. Cain (5th Cir. 2002) (discusses finality and applicability of new rules where out-of-time appeals are involved)
- 572 So. 2d 1144 State v. Patterson (La. App. 1st Cir. 1990) (discussed by parties on finality/retroactivity questions)