193 So. 3d 1242
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Glenn Ford was convicted of first-degree murder in 1984, sentenced to death, and spent ~30 years on death row; the conviction was vacated by the State in 2014 and charges were dropped.
- Ford filed a statutory petition for wrongful conviction compensation under La. R.S. 15:572.8, which requires (1) vacatur/reversal and (2) proof by clear and convincing evidence of "factual innocence," defined to include not having committed "any crime based upon the same set of facts used in his original conviction."
- The matter was tried in district court on the 34-volume criminal record and briefs; Ford did not testify at the compensation hearing and offered no new testimonial evidence.
- The trial court found Ford failed to prove factual innocence because the record supported that he committed other crimes arising from the same facts (illegal possession of stolen things, accessory after the fact, principal to armed robbery, and possibly conspiracy/obstruction).
- The court of appeal (on rehearing) affirmed, applying manifest-error review to the trial court’s factual findings and holding the statute allows consideration of any relevant evidence regardless of admissibility at the criminal trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ford proved "factual innocence" (no commission of any crime based on same facts) | Ford: vacatur plus equities and vacatur should support compensation; he did not commit the underlying murder. | State: Ford must prove by clear and convincing evidence he did not commit any other crime arising from the same facts; he failed to do so. | Held: Ford did not meet the clear-and-convincing burden; record supports commission of other crimes, so compensation denied. |
| Scope of evidence the compensation court may consider | Ford: court should consider only evidence "used in his original conviction" to determine involvement in other crimes. | State: La. R.S. 15:572.8(D) permits consideration of any relevant evidence regardless of admissibility at the criminal trial. | Held: The statute’s subsection (D) is unambiguous—court may consider any relevant evidence (including excluded statements) in determining factual innocence. |
| Allocation and quantum of proof | Ford: implicit challenge to burden placement and difficulty of proving a negative by clear and convincing evidence. | State: burden is on petitioner to prove factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. | Held: Burden remains on petitioner; clear-and-convincing is required and petitioner failed to satisfy it. |
| Standard of appellate review of trial court fact findings | Ford: (implicit) trial court misapplied law and facts. | State: trial court’s factual findings entitled to deference. | Held: Manifest-error standard governs; trial court’s factual findings were not manifestly erroneous and are affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burge v. State, 54 So.3d 1110 (La. 2011) (describing the sui generis nature of La. R.S. 15:572.8)
- Burrell and Graham v. State of Louisiana, 184 So.3d 246 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2016) (applies manifest-error review and explains clear-and-convincing factual-innocence burden)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standards for manifest-error review of factual findings)
- Wooley v. Lucksinger, 61 So.3d 507 (La. 2011) (discussing appellate review deference to trial factfindings)