State v. Petitto
2011 La. LEXIS 607
| La. | 2011Background
- Tangipahoa Parish grand jury indicted Michael Petitto on two counts of malfeasance in office under LSA-R.S. 14:134 based on Code of Governmental Ethics provisions.
- Indictment alleges the acts involved approving a parish resolution for Pine Grove Subdivision to benefit a party with personal interest, including payoff of the defendant’s brother’s mortgage and cancellation of his mortgage.
- Petitto argued the indictment duplicitous and that the ethics provisions are civil, not criminal, thus cannot support malfeasance.
- District court granted the motion to quash, concluding ethics laws cannot form the basis for malfeasance in office; lower courts affirmed the ruling.
- Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether ethics duties can support malfeasance under 14:134.
- The court holds that violations of 42:1112(B)(1) and 42:1111(E)(1) may form a basis for malfeasance when coupled with the requisite criminal intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ethics duties are 'duties lawfully required' for malfeasance | State argues yes; ethics provisions create affirmative duties. | Petitto argues no; ethics provisions are civil and not the basis for malfeasance. | Yes; ethics duties may constitute a duty lawfully required when criminal intent is proven. |
| Whether the two-count indictment is duplicitous | State contends no duplicity; counts rely on separate statutory duties. | Petitto contends potential duplicity due to same conduct charged in both counts. | Unresolved on the record; remanded for further proceedings; court did not resolve duplicity issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Passman, 391 So.2d 1140 (La. 1980) (establishes 'duty lawfully required' requires affirmative duty)
- State v. Perez, 464 So.2d 737 (La. 1985) (narrow definition of duty; oath of office as duty source)
- State v. Perret, 563 So.2d 459 (La.App.1 Cir.1990) (defines 'duty lawfully required' with clarifying dictionary terms)
- State v. Schwehm, 729 So.2d 548 (La. 1999) (remitting littering fines as duty imposed by statute)
- State v. McGuffie, 962 So.2d 1111 (La.App.2 Cir.2007) (malfeasance framework and duty analysis)
- State v. Boyte, 973 So.2d 900 (La.App.2 Cir.2007) (violation of duty imposed by ethics or related statutes)
- State v. Petitto, 50 So.3d 822 (La. 2010) (ethics provisions may support malfeasance under 14:134)