State of Louisiana Versus Adam Littleton
306 So.3d 558
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Adam Littleton was indicted for second-degree murder (La. R.S. 14:30.1); a 12-person jury returned a 10–2 guilty verdict on July 28, 2017.
- Littleton was sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension on November 9, 2017.
- This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal on December 4, 2019; rehearing denied; Louisiana Supreme Court initially denied writ, then granted reconsideration on September 29, 2020 to address Ramos issues.
- The United States Supreme Court in Ramos v. Louisiana held the Sixth Amendment (as incorporated against the states) requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict of serious offenses.
- Because Littleton’s non-unanimous verdict was pending on direct review when Ramos issued, the Fifth Circuit vacated Littleton’s conviction and sentence and remanded for a new trial.
- The opinion notes that other assigned errors were rendered moot by Ramos except sufficiency of the evidence (which is reviewed first because a finding of insufficiency would bar retrial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ramos’s unanimity rule applies to this case | State relied on pre-Ramos Louisiana law permitting non-unanimous verdicts | Littleton argued Ramos requires unanimity and applies to cases pending on direct review | Ramos applies; non-unanimous 10–2 verdict unconstitutional; conviction and sentence vacated and case remanded for new trial |
| Whether the court must consider non-unanimity on error-patent review even if not preserved | State: non-unanimity may have been unpreserved/waived | Littleton: issue is reviewable under La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2) and must be considered under Ramos | Court must consider non-unanimity in error-patent review and did so per Louisiana Supreme Court instruction |
| Effect of sufficiency of the evidence | State argued evidence supported conviction | Littleton argued evidence insufficient | Sufficiency was already addressed on appeal; court notes sufficiency review precedes Ramos remedy because an acquittal would bar retrial |
| Disposition of other assigned errors on appeal | State defended prior rulings | Littleton challenged various trial rulings | Other assigned errors rendered moot by grant of new trial under Ramos (except sufficiency, discussed above) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) (Sixth Amendment requires unanimous verdicts to convict in state felony trials)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new rules of criminal procedure apply to cases pending on direct review)
- Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 (1981) (acquittal for insufficiency bars retrial)
- State v. Kelly, 299 So.3d 1284 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2020) (defendants with non-unanimous convictions pending on direct review entitled to new trials under Ramos)
- State v. Harrell, 299 So.3d 1274 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2020) (same)
- State v. Craddock, 307 So.2d 342 (La. 1975) (jury verdict discoverable in pleadings/proceedings for error-patent review)