94 So. 3d 983
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Wilkins killed Fontenot on September 21, 2004 after a drug-debt-related dispute.
- The relationship began as user-dealer, evolving into a distributor arrangement to fund Wilkins’s addiction.
- Fontenot allegedly threatened to kill Wilkins if debts were not paid; no threat by Fontenot initiated that night.
- Wilkins surrendered after learning Fontenot was found dead and police were at his grandmother’s residence.
- Indictment in 2004 charged second-degree murder and drug offenses; death-penalty notice was later withdrawn; trial by jury occurred in 2011 resulting in guilty verdicts.
- The trial court later sentenced Wilkins to life for second-degree murder and terms for drug offenses; post-trial motions were denied; appeal granted addressing Batson and speedy-trial issues, with conviction and sentence ultimately reversed and remanded for a new trial due to Batson violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State violated Batson in striking African-American jurors | Wilkins argues strikes were race-based. | State knowingly used race to strike jurors. | Batson violation; new trial ordered. |
| Whether Batson challenges to Wiley and Duhon were timely and properly denied | Pattern of discrimination shown; timely objections. | State’s reasons pretextual but timely objections failed. | Batson violation; new trial ordered. |
| Whether the Batson ruling as to Mitchell, Wiley, and Duhon violated equal protection | State admitted race-based reasoning; discriminatory impact. | Court misapplied Batson standards; jurors could be kept. | Batson violation; new trial ordered. |
| Whether the six-year pretrial delay violated speedy-trial rights under Barker v. Wingo | Delay deprived defense of timely trial. | Delay largely due to defense and supervisory-review processes; not prejudicial. | No speedy-trial violation; but moot due to reversal on Batson grounds. |
| Whether the case should be retried given Batson violations and procedural history | Convictions tainted; due process requires reversal. | Remedy need not include retrial. | Convictions reversed; sentences vacated; remanded for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (establishes four-factor speedy-trial test)
- Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1967) (due process protections in speedy-trial context)
- State v. Batiste, 939 So.2d 1245 (La. 2006) (discusses Barker factors in Louisiana context)
- United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302 (U.S. 1986) (weights delays from supervisory review in speedy-trial analysis)
- State v. Harris, 820 So.2d 471 (La. 2002) (race-based peremptory challenges violate equal protection)
- J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (U.S. 1994) (prohibits gender-based peremptory challenges; informs Batson framework)