WILBERT JONES VS. STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. 2022-C-01455
Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 5, 2023
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #023 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
BY Griffin, J.:
2022-C-01455 WILBERT JONES VS. STATE OF LOUISIANA (Parish of East Baton Rouge)
AFFIRMED. SEE OPINION.
Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
WILBERT JONES VS. STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. 2022-C-01455
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge
We granted this writ to clarify the evidentiary burden a petitioner must meet for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Because we agree with the court of appeal that the statutory burden under
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter arises out of Mr. Wilbert Jones’ suit for compensation under
Police showed A.H. multiple lineups. Three months after the rape, police arrested Mr. Jones. He was nineteen at the time. Mr. Jones volunteered to participate in a lineup. A.H. considered the individuals in the lineup for ten to fifteen minutes before identifying Mr. Jones as her assailant. However, she stated she was not sure and was “mulling over” her identification. A.H. noted that Mr. Jones’ voice was different from that of her assailant. She also stated that her assailant seemed a bit
Mr. Jones was indicted for the rape of A.H. on April 3, 1972. At trial, he testified that he did not rape A.H. and that he participated in the lineup because he was certain of his innocence. Despite earlier equivocations, A.H. testified that Mr. Jones was her assailant. Mr. Jones was found guilty of rape but his conviction was overturned by this Court due to racially prejudicial comments made by the prosecutor in opening statements. State v. Jones, 283 So.2d 476, 477 (La. 1973). He was retried and convicted again, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. Jones, 325 So.2d 235, 241 (La. 1975).
In 2011, Mr. Jones filed a petition for post-conviction relief seeking DNA testing. He also presented additional evidence of similarities between A.H.‘s rape and one committed by Arnold Ray O‘Conner. The trial court initially denied his request. However, this Court granted supervisory relief and remanded for a hearing to determine whether the State, by not informing Mr. Jones of Mr. O‘Conner‘s crime, withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Jones v. Vannoy, 17-0101 (La. 6/16/17), 221 So.3d 850. On remand, Judge Richard Anderson ruled the State had committed a Brady violation observing the near-identical modus operandi of the rape of Mr. O‘Conner‘s victim and that of A.H. After this Court denied writs, the State dismissed the indictment against Mr. Jones and he was released from prison after nearly fifty years of confinement.
Mr. Jones subsequently filed a petition for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment relying on the factual findings of Judge Anderson1 and testimony by Dr. Margaret Kovera, an expert in eyewitness identification. The trial
The State‘s writ application to this Court followed, which we granted. Jones v. State, 22-1455 (La. 1/11/23), 352 So.3d 556.
DISCUSSION
The issue before this Court is whether Mr. Jones is entitled to compensation under
A petitioner who has served a sentence of imprisonment for which he was convicted is entitled to compensation under
The State argues that existing jurisprudence interpreting
The Wrongful Conviction Compensation Statute “is sui generis, and governs a unique situation” such that it is “the only relevant authority governing” petitions for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Burge v. State, 10-2229, p. 6 (La. 2/11/11), 54 So.3d 1110, 1113. The starting place for the interpretation of a statute is the language of the statute itself. Pierce Foundations, Inc. v. Jaroy Const., Inc., 15-0785, p. 7 (La. 5/3/16), 190 So.3d 298, 303). Furthermore, under
Having concluded that legal error interdicted the factual findings of the trial court, the court of appeal properly conducted a de novo review of the record. See Kinnett v. Kinnett, 20-1134, p. 7 (La. 10/10/21), 332 So.3d 1149, 1154 (“where one or more legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable, and, if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record“). The Wrongful Conviction Compensation Statute requires proof of factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence.
The record reflects the near-identical nature in which Mr. O‘Conner committed the rape for which he was convicted compared to the rape of A.H.3 As found by Judge Anderson at the post-conviction hearing, the list of similarities include:4 (1) each victim was kidnapped at gunpoint in the parking lot of a Baton Rouge hospital; (2) the rapist ordered the women to drive around while he was in the back seat; (3) the rapist ordered the women to hold his hand as they crossed Scenic Highway into a secluded area; (4) the rapist wiped himself clean with the victim‘s clothing; (5) the rapist drove the victim to 28th and Slate Street where he left the victim and walked in the direction Mr. O‘Conner‘s Slate Street residence; and (6) the rapist left behind a pick hair comb at each scene.
Further evidence in favor of Mr. Jones’ factual innocence includes the fact that A.H.‘s description of her assailant matches Mr. O‘Conner, not Mr. Jones,5 and the lack of certainty in A.H.‘s identification of Mr. Jones. Notably, as there was no forensic or physical evidence linking Mr. Jones to the rape, the State‘s case rested entirely on A.H.‘s identification. Dr. Kovera gave expert testimony as to various factors that indicate the potential for inaccuracies in identifications including heightened stress when a weapon is involved, prolonged delay between the crime and the identification, and low-confidence identifications where, as here, the witness
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
WILBERT JONES VS. STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. 2022-C-01455
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge
In this civil, not criminal, proceeding, we answer whether Mr. Jones should be compensated for his imprisonment. The burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence that he is innocent. That is, clear and convincing evidence he did not rape A.H. Specifically, we must determine the character of evidence necessary to meet that burden of proof and determine if Mr. Jones has satisfied it. Here, where this civil case is pursued after A.H.‘s death, her identification of Mr. Jones has never been and cannot now be recanted, nor can she defend it. While perhaps unfortunate, I believe this fact prevents civil recovery for Mr. Jones.
A.H. testified Mr. Jones raped her. Two times, her testimony convicted him. She never recanted her identification of Mr. Jones. In fact, an alternative suspect was presented at his first jury trial and A.H.‘s identification still convicted Mr. Jones. Now, A.H. is dead. Before she died, she was never confronted with this new evidence of an alternative suspect, so she neither defended, nor recanted, her identification of Mr. Jones as her rapist. Although uncertainty relative to her identification of Mr. Jones has been vetted repeatedly, its strength convicted Mr. Jones twice. If she were alive, would A.H. now recant her identification of Mr. Jones? If not, and if her identification was again persuasive, it could convict him a
Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:572.8, enacted in 2005, requires “scientific or non-scientific evidence” to support civil recovery for a wrongful imprisonment. In Burrell v. State, 50,157 (La. App.2d Cir. 1/13/16), 184 So. 3d 246, the court determined that evidence must be “new, material, noncumulative, and conclusive,” including “trustworthy eyewitness accounts.” The Burrell court relied upon State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290 and State v. Pierre, 13-0873 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403, both post conviction relief cases claiming “actual innocence,” to define the evidence necessary for a civil recovery. In Jones v. State, 19-1570 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/18/20), 313 So.3d 997, the court again applied the Burrell evidence standard. I believe Burrell is correct and remains the applicable law.
The majority finds that a legislative amendment to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 926.2 changed the Burrell standard. That amendment addressed a non-DNA-based post conviction relief claim of actual innocence, not recovery of civil damages. To prove “actual innocence” for post conviction relief, the amended article requires “new, reliable, and non-cumulative evidence” that is either scientific, forensic, physical, or nontestimonial documentary evidence or testimonial evidence corroborated by this type of evidence. In the post conviction relief setting, this codified the jurisprudential standard developed in Conway and Pierre. But,
I believe the court of appeal and the majority here misinterpret the effect of the amendment to
But, whether we apply the Burrell standard or the one adopted by the majority, neither supports Mr. Jones’ recovery of compensation under
I dissent.