76 So. 3d 602
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- November 30, 2009: State charged defendant with one count armed robbery and two counts attempted armed robbery; defendant pled not guilty.
- Trial motions heard April 26, 2010 and August 31, 2010; motion to suppress identification denied; probable cause found.
- Trial commenced August 31, 2010; jury found defendant guilty on all counts.
- September 24, 2011: defendant sentenced to 50 years for armed robbery and 24 years for each attempted armed robbery; all terms hard labor, no probation/parole.
- November 29, 2011: defendant found to be a second felony offender; sentence for armed robbery vacated and reincreased to 50 years; motion to reconsider denied; grant of appeal.
- Evidence at issue included a composite sketch, a three-witness lineup process, and subsequent photographic identifications; issues on identifications and sentencing framed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of out-of-court identification | Thibodeaux: burden on defendant to prove suggestiveness and likelihood of misidentification | Jackson contends lineup was unduly suggestive and identification unreliable | Assignment lacks merit; no substantial likelihood of misidentification established |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument | State improperly appealed to prejudice in closing | Defense claims misstep shifted burden and influenced jurors | Comment within permissible scope of closing argument; no reversible error |
| Non-unanimous jury verdict | Constitution permits non-unanimous verdict for hard labor cases | Non-unanimity violates protections implied by Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendments | Non-unanimous verdict upheld; not constitutionally defective |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thibodeaux, 750 So.2d 916 (La. 1999) (standard for suppression of identifications; burdens and criteria)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (totality of circumstances test for identification reliability)
- State v. Taylor, 669 So.2d 364 (La. 1996) (prosecutor latitude in closing arguments; control by trial court)
- State v. Casey, 775 So.2d 1022 (La. 2000) (trial court broad discretion in closing argument scope)
- State v. Bertrand, 6 So.3d 738 (La. 2009) (nonunanimous verdict viability under state constitution)