112 So. 3d 796
La.2013Background
- Defendant Lewis challenged a district court ruling prohibiting a back strike of provisionally accepted juror Wolfe under La.C.Cr.P. art. 799.1.
- The murders occurred July 24, 2002; Lewis and co-defendant Anderson were indicted on two counts of murder.
- Wolfe was seated after the voir dire; defense sought a back strike at end of the fourth venire panel but was denied.
- Trial (2010) resulted in guilty verdicts on both counts and life sentences; defendant moved for mistrial over non-unanimous verdict challenges.
- Court of Appeal affirmed convictions, applying harmless error analysis to the denial of the back strike; this Court granted certiorari to reconsider the remedy.
- The issue is the proper remedy when a back-strike right is denied in violation of Art. 799.1; whether harmless-error analysis remains the correct standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of a back strike under Art. 799.1 is subject to harmless-error review. | State argues Taylor harmless-error standard applies. | Lewis argues automatic reversal or different standard should apply. | Harmless-error standard applies; not automatic reversal. |
| Whether the state failed to prove that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | State contends the verdicts were surely unattributable to Wolfe's presence. | Lewis contends the presence of Wolfe could have affected outcomes; burden not met. | State failed to prove the verdicts were surely unattributable to the error. |
| Whether Taylor’s harmless-error framework remains appropriate after Art. 799.1. | State relies on Taylor as controlling. | Lewis argues Taylor should not govern post-799.1 violations. | Taylor’s harmless-error framework remains the appropriate standard. |
| What is the proper remedy for a violation of Art. 799.1 in this context? | State seeks reliance on harmless-error review to affirm convictions. | Lewis seeks reversal/remand for new trial. | Convictions reversed, sentences vacated, remanded for new trial. |
| Does this case implicate constitutional peremptory-challenge rights or only statutory ones? | State treats as statutory right. | Lewis argues constitutional implications extend to back strikes. | The remedy decision rests on state-law harmless-error analysis, not constitutional invalidation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor, 669 So.2d 864 (La. 1996) (back strikes and harmless-error analysis after misapplication of Art. 799.1)
- State v. Watts, 579 So.2d 931 (La. 1991) (early rule on back strikes tied to voir dire and challenges)
- State v. Monroe, 366 So.2d 1345 (La. 1978) (presumption of prejudice when peremptory challenges are misused to correct cause issues)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (harmless-error standard for non-structural errors in criminal trials)