302 So.3d 544
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Sherman Hampton was indicted on four counts of aggravated rape occurring in 1992, 1995, April 17, 2003, and May 31, 2003; he pleaded not guilty and disputed DNA evidence via a Daubert motion (denied).
- Backlogged sexual-assault kits were tested by a private lab (ReliaGene); Louisiana State Police later matched Hampton’s buccal swab to evidence from the four cases (extremely small random-match probability reported).
- Voir dire: a prospective juror (#39) mistakenly told the court she thought Hampton had assaulted her; several venire members who heard the remark were excused and the court individually questioned the second venire panel at defense counsel’s request.
- Jury verdicts: counts 1 and 4 — unanimous convictions for aggravated rape; count 2 — guilty by 10–2 (aggravated rape); count 3 — guilty by 11–1 (simple rape).
- Post-trial: motions for new trial and to vacate non-unanimous verdicts denied; sentences imposed (life without benefits for aggravated rapes; 25 years for simple rape). Appeal followed.
- On appeal the court affirmed convictions and sentences for counts 1 and 4, but vacated counts 2 and 3 and remanded in light of Ramos v. Louisiana.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hampton's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to excuse the entire second venire panel after a juror (#39) claimed Hampton attempted to assault her | Individual voir dire cured any prejudice; jurors who heard the remark were excused; defense requested individual questioning | The mistaken allegation infected the whole panel and required excusal | No abuse of discretion; inquiry and excusals removed prejudice; defense waived/on appeal failed to preserve some objections; assignment denied |
| Whether non-unanimous jury verdicts (10–2 and 11–1) violate the Sixth Amendment | Non-unanimous verdicts valid under contemporaneous state procedure (pre-Ramos); convictions should stand | Ramos requires unanimous verdicts in state felony trials; convictions lacking unanimity must be vacated | Counts 2 and 3 vacated and remanded because Ramos applies to cases pending on direct review; counts 1 and 4 affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020) (State felony jury verdicts must be unanimous)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004) (new rules from Supreme Court apply to cases on direct review)
- State v. Carmouche, 872 So.2d 1020 (La. 2004) (trial court may question and excuse jurors to cure potential prejudice)
- State v. Pollard, 165 So.3d 289 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (objections must be contemporaneous to preserve appellate review)
- State v. Dominick, 133 So.3d 250 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (La. R.S. 15:301.1 makes certain sentencing restrictions self-effectuating)
- State v. Wyatt, 83 So.3d 131 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (discussing statutory imposition of sentence restrictions when omitted at sentencing)