116 So. 3d 761
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Petitto, a Tangipahoa Parish Councilman, was indicted on two counts of malfeasance in office for actions during Mar–Nov 2006.
- Alleged violations involve the Code of Governmental Ethics: RS 42:1112B(1) and 42:1111E(1).
- Trial was by judge; Petitto was found guilty and sentenced to five years on each count, with suspensions and fines; sentences run concurrently for the probation terms.
- Key factual core: in Oct 2006 Sal Petitto (defendant’s brother) sold land to Pine Grove/Standard Enterprises; land deal tied to LHFA tax credits.
- Defendant allegedly voted for a supporting resolution knowing his brother had a substantial economic interest in the land development.
- Petitto appeals on four assignments of error, challenging sufficiency, burden-shifting, notice requirements, and the quash motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for count 1 | Petitto knew of Sal’s substantial interest and caused the resolution. | No proof of actual knowledge or intent. | Sustained: evidence supports knowledge and participation. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for count 2 | Receipt of value for assisting with the LHFA deal. | No sufficient link between payment and quid pro quo. | Sustained: evidence supports receiving economic value. |
| Burden-shifting re sworn written statement | Sworn statement is an element under 1111E(1). | Not an element; not an affirmative defense. | Meritless: not an element or defense to 1111E(1). |
| Quash motion and duplicity/double jeopardy | Counts properly joined under CRS 493; no duplicitous flaw. | Potential duplicity and double jeopardy concerns. | Meritless: indictment proper; no duplicitous count; no double jeopardy violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Ordodi, 946 So.2d 654 (La. 2006) (Jackson-based sufficiency review in Louisiana)
- State v. Moten, 510 So.2d 55 (La.App.1st Cir. 1987) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency standard)
- State v. Calloway, 1 So.3d 417 (La.1st Cir. 2009) (appellate deference to fact-finder credibility)
- State v. Petitto, 59 So.3d 1245 (La. 2011) (ethics-based criminal prosecutions approved; duty bifurcation)
- State v. Williams, 978 So.2d 895 (La. 2008) (same-evidence approach to double jeopardy)
- State v. Martin, 92 So.3d 1027 (La.App.1st Cir. 2012) (Blockburger vs. same-evidence test discussion)
- Letell, 103 So.3d 1129 (La.App.1st Cir. 2012) (double jeopardy analysis framework)