State v. Davenport
147 So. 3d 137
La.2014Background
- Davenport was charged with aggravated rape under La. R.S. 14:42(A)(6).
- A jury trial began after jury selection in 2012; defense moved for acquittal under La.C.Cr.P. art. 778 after the state rested.
- Trial judge denied the motion, allowing defense to present its case.
- After all evidence, the judge granted acquittal, finding the victim lacked the required mental infirmity; the defense objected.
- A few days later the judge declared a mistrial under La.C.Cr.P. art. 775(5) due to an inability to proceed consistent with law.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that a mistrial did not bar retrial under double jeopardy; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted review to resolve law on authority to acquit and double jeopardy.]
- The Louisiana Supreme Court held the trial judge acted without authority to grant a directed acquittal in a jury trial; the resulting illegal verdict meant the mistrial was properly declared and retrial is not barred by double jeopardy; court remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mistrial was legally ordered. | State: mistrial valid under Art. 775(5) after illegal acquittal. | Davenport: acquittal occurred without authority; mistrial based on that invalid act cannot save retrial. | Yes; mistrial valid if ordered under Art. 775(5) or (3) for legal defects; retrial allowed. |
| Does an unauthorized acquittal preclude retrial under double jeopardy? | State/defense rely on federal precedents applying double jeopardy despite error. | Unauthorized acquittal must be treated as null; double jeopardy does not bar retrial if verdict is void. | Unauthorized acquittal is void; double jeopardy does not bar retrial because the verdict had no legal effect. |
| Does La. Art. 778 authorize mid-trial acquittal in a jury trial? | State: Art. 778 limited to bench trials; acquittal before jury verdict void. | Art. 821 governs post-verdict judgments; pre-verdict acquittal should be allowed under Art. 778. | Art. 778 does not authorize mid-trial acquittals in jury trials; such action is ultra vires and invalid. |
| Was the trial judge’s later mistrial declaration permissible? | Mistrial justified by physical impossibility to proceed after an illegitimate acquittal. | Yes; mistrial proper under Art. 775(5) given the illegality of the acquittal and subsequent impossibility to continue. | |
| Does the separation of powers or judicial authority limit the outcome? | Judge exceeded authority; not a separation-of-powers violation per se, but ultra vires action. | Authority issue; the improper act was void, allowing retrial consistent with double jeopardy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 143 (1962) (acquittal unreviewable; erroneous basis does not alter character of acquittal)
- Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (1978) (erroneous evidentiary rulings do not change acquittal’s character)
- Evans v. Michigan, — U.S. — (2013) (midtrial acquittal generally bars retrial; states may preclude such practice)
- United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978) (acquittal’s essential character unaffected by invalid basis; double jeopardy concerns)
- Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (2005) (collection of cases on unreviewable acquittals; et al.)
- Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 (1949) (jeopardy not ended by unforeseeable trial events; mistrial doctrine)
- Hudson v. Louisiana, 253 La. 992; 221 So.2d 484 (1969) (directed verdicts in jury trials rejected; preserved for Art. 778 history)
- State v. Goodley, 423 So.2d 648 (La.1982) (jeopardy rule in Louisiana with mistrial contexts)
- State v. Broussard, 46 So.2d 48 (La.1950) (jury as judge of law and facts; directed verdicts improper)