54 So. 3d 678
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant Joshua Thomas was convicted by a 12-person jury of two counts armed robbery, one count attempted armed robbery, and one count aggravated battery in the 24th Judicial District Court.
- Defendant challenged LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 782 (non-unanimous 12-person juries for hard labor crimes) as unconstitutional; trial court denied the motion to quash.
- Trial occurred August 25–26, 2009; the jury returned guilty verdicts on all four counts.
- Sentences: 40 years hard labor for armed robberies (counts 1 and 2), 20 years for attempted armed robbery (count 3), and 10 years for aggravated battery (count 4); all terms run concurrently without parole or probation.
- State filed a habitual offender bill of information seeking enhancement on count 1; related proceedings occur in a companion case 10-KA-221.
- Appellate review affirmed the convictions and sentences, with discussion of jury instructions and patent errors; companion issues discuss co-defendant Shawn Martin and related matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Article 782 under governing federal law | Thomas argues Article 782 is unconstitutional | Thomas relies on potential forthcoming US Supreme Court reversal | Article 782 upheld; court follows Louisiana Supreme Court precedent |
| Failure to give two requested special jury instructions | Thomas argues trial court erred by not giving his charges | Charges were repetitive or not properly supported; general charges sufficed | No reversible error; trial court properly denied those requests |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bertrand, 6 So.3d 738 (La. 2009) (affirms Article 782 constitutionality and precedent)
- State v. Raymond, 13 So.3d 577 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (nonunanimous verdicts permitted; imitation of Bertrand for intermediate review)
- State v. Hollins, 15 So.3d 69 (La. 2009) (jury instruction standards under Art. 802/807)
- State v. Harris, 892 So.2d 1238 (La. 2005) (standard for when denial of requested jury instruction constitutes reversible error)
- State v. Chism, 3 So.3d 41 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008) (guidance on jury instructions and related evidentiary standards)
- State v. Kerlec, 957 So.2d 810 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2007) (mandatory fine issues for offenses with "not more than" fines)
- State v. Decrevel, 847 So.2d 1197 (La. 2003) (appellate correction of illegally lenient sentence when mandatory fine omitted)
- State v. Hill, 15 So.3d 1046 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (post-conviction relief timing clarified in advisals)