Article 4, Section 5, Subsection (E of the Louisiana Constitution grants the Governor of the State of Louisiana the following powers:

(E) Pardon, Commutation, Reprieve, and Remission; Board of Pardons.

(1) The governor may grant reprieves to persons convicted of offenses against the state and, upon favorable recommendation of the Board of Pardons,1 may commute sentences, pardon those convicted of offenses against the state, and remit fines and forfeitures imposed for such offenses. However, a first offender convicted of a non-violent crime, or convicted of aggravated battery, second degree battery, aggravated assault, mingling harmful substances, aggravated criminal damage to property, purse snatching, extortion, or illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities never previously convicted of a felony shall be pardoned automatically upon completion of his sentence, without a recommendation of the Board of Pardons and without action by the governor.

(emphasis added).

This section of the Louisiana Constitution grants those never before convicted of a felony to automatically receive a “first offender pardon” under several circumstances:

(1) If they are convicted of a “non-violent crime”

Crimes of violence are defined in Louisiana Revised Statutes §14:2 as: “an offense that has, as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, and that, by its very nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense or an offense that involves the possession or use of a dangerous weapon.”

La. R.S. 14:2 further gives an enumerated list of crimes the legislature defines as “crimes of violence”:

(1) Solicitation for murder.

(2) First degree murder.

(3) Second degree murder.

(4) Manslaughter.

(5) Aggravated battery.

(6) Second degree battery.

(7) Aggravated assault.

(8) Aggravated kidnapping of a child.

(9) Aggravated or first degree rape.

(10) Forcible or second degree rape.

(11) Simple or third degree rape.

(12) Sexual battery.

(13) Second degree sexual battery.

(14) Intentional exposure to AIDS virus.

(15) Aggravated kidnapping.

(16) Second degree kidnapping.

(17) Simple kidnapping.

(18) Aggravated arson.

(19) Aggravated criminal damage to property.

(20) Aggravated burglary.

(21) Armed robbery.

(22) First degree robbery.

(23) Simple robbery.

(24) Purse snatching.

(25) False imprisonment; offender armed with dangerous weapon.

(26) Assault by drive-by shooting.

(27) Aggravated crime against nature.

(28) Carjacking.

(29) Molestation of a juvenile or a person with a physical or mental disability.

(30) Terrorism.

(31) Aggravated second degree battery.

(32) Aggravated assault upon a peace officer.

(33) Aggravated assault with a firearm.

(34) Armed robbery; use of firearm; additional penalty.

(35) Second degree robbery.

(36) Disarming of a peace officer.

(37) Stalking.

(38) Second degree cruelty to juveniles.

(39) Aggravated flight from an officer.

(40) Sexual battery of persons with infirmities.

(41) Battery of a police officer.

(42) Trafficking of children for sexual purposes.

(43) Human trafficking.

(44) Home invasion.

(45) Domestic abuse aggravated assault.

(46) Vehicular homicide, when the operator's blood alcohol concentration exceeds 0.20 percent by weight based on grams of alcohol per one hundred cubic centimeters of blood.

(47) Aggravated assault upon a dating partner.

(48) Domestic abuse battery punishable under R.S. 14:35.3(L), (M)(2), (N), (O), or (P).

(49) Battery of a dating partner punishable under R.S. 14:34.9(L), (M)(2), (N), (O), or (P).

(50) Violation of a protective order punishable under R.S. 14:79(C).

(51) Criminal abortion.

(52) First degree feticide.

(53) Second degree feticide.

(54) Third degree feticide.

(55) Aggravated abortion by dismemberment.

(56) Battery of emergency room personnel, emergency services personnel, or a healthcare professional.

(57) Possession of a firearm or carrying of a concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies in violation of R.S. 14:95.1(D).

(58) Distribution of fentanyl or carfentanil punishable under R.S. 40:967(B)(4)(b).

(59) Distribution of heroin punishable under R.S. 40:966(B)(3)(b).

La R.S. 14:2(B). All individuals convicted of the crimes listed above will not receive a first offender pardon unless:

(2) They are convicted of “aggravated battery, second degree battery, aggravated assault, mingling harmful substances, aggravated criminal damage to property, purse snatching, extortion, or illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities” because the legislature explicitly excluded these offense and allows for first offender pardons for these convictions.

A First Offender Pardon is not like a Pardon with restoration of gun rights signed by the Governor because it does not restore an individual’s right to possess a firearm under either State or Federal law. Nor does it impact that person’s right to vote as voting rights are restored for all felons immediately upon completion of their sentence as of other legislation that was passed several years ago.

At this point, the only effect a first offender pardon appears to have is that it allows an individual to file for an expungement of a felony conviction immediately upon receiving his pardon, rather than having to wait 10 years to establish a clean record as would otherwise by required by Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 978.

If you or someone you know has received a first offender pardon and would like to know if you are eligible for an expungement, give us a call at (318) 459-9111 to set up a consult.

Since it is the new year, we always like to take this time when people are thinking about “new year, new me,” to talk about expungements.

An expungement, in Louisiana, is a process by which an individual with an arrest on his record may, under certain circumstances, remove that arrest record from public view on his rap sheet. It is important to note that in Louisiana an expungement does not make it like the arrest never happened. The arrest record can still be seen by law enforcement and the court system (and therefore, if the person was convicted, can be used against them as a predicate offense for purposes of multiple offender sentencing, for example) and there are many state agencies which are exempt from the expungement order and will still be able to see the record (the Louisiana State Bar Association, Louisiana State Nursing & Medical Boards, and Insurance Board, just to name a few).

There are three types of arrest records that may be eligible for expungement:

1. An arrest that did not result in a conviction

2. An arrest that resulted in a misdemeanor conviction.

3. An arrest that resulted in a felony conviction.

Each has slightly different rules and regulations:

An Arrest That Did Not Result in a Conviction:

"A. A person may file a motion to expunge a record of his arrest for a felony or misdemeanor offense that did not result in a conviction if any of the following apply:

(1) The person was not prosecuted for the offense for which he was arrested, and the limitations on the institution of prosecution have barred the prosecution for that offense.

(2) The district attorney for any reason declined to prosecute any offense arising out of that arrest, including the reason that the person successfully completed a pretrial diversion program.

(3) Prosecution was instituted and such proceedings have been finally disposed of by dismissal, sustaining of a motion to quash, or acquittal.

(4) The person was judicially determined to be factually innocent and entitled to compensation for a wrongful conviction pursuant to the provisions of R.S. 15:572.8. The person may seek to have the arrest and conviction which formed the basis for the wrongful conviction expunged without the limitations or time delays imposed by the provisions of this Article or any other provision of law to the contrary."

La CCrP ART. 976.

An Arrest That Resulted in a Conviction of a Misdemeanor:

A. A person may file a motion to expunge his record of arrest and conviction of a misdemeanor offense if either of the following apply:

(1) The conviction was set aside and the prosecution was dismissed pursuant to Article 894(B) of this Code.

(2) More than five years have elapsed since the person completed any sentence, deferred adjudication, or period of probation or parole, and the person has not been convicted of any felony offense during the five-year period, and has no felony charge pending against him. The motion filed pursuant to this Subparagraph shall include a certification obtained from the district attorney which verifies that to his knowledge the applicant has no felony convictions during the five-year period and no pending felony charges under a bill of information or indictment.

La CCrP Art. 977(A). However, there are some exceptions to the above rules: Expungements of convictions arising from circumstances involving or as the result of an arrest for a sex offense and convictions for domestic abuse battery and stalking are not eligible for expungement under any circumstances. La CCrP Art. 977(C).

An Arrest That Resulted in a Felony Conviction

A. Except as provided in Paragraph B of this Article, a person may file a motion to expunge his record of arrest and conviction of a felony offense if any of the following apply:

(1) The conviction was set aside and the prosecution was dismissed pursuant to Article 893(E).

(2) More than ten years have elapsed since the person completed any sentence, deferred adjudication, or period of probation or parole based on the felony conviction, and the person has not been convicted of any other criminal offense during the ten-year period, and has no criminal charge pending against him. The motion filed pursuant to this Subparagraph shall include a certification obtained from the district attorney which verifies that, to his knowledge, the applicant has no convictions during the ten-year period and no pending charges under a bill of information or indictment.

(3) The person is entitled to a first offender pardon for the offense pursuant to Article IV, Section 5(E)(1) of the Constitution of Louisiana, provided that the offense is not defined as a crime of violence pursuant to R.S. 14:2(B) or a sex offense pursuant to R.S. 15:541.

La CCrP Art. 978(A). Just as in the case of misdemeanor convictions, there are exceptions to these eligibility requirements, as well:

• Crimes of violence, unless an exception to this exception applies (yes, I know. I’ll get to that.)

• A sex offense or crime against a victim who is a minor as defined in the sex offender registry statute.

• Violations of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law, except: simple possession, possession with intent to distribute, if the possible term of imprisonment is less than five years, if the person was sentenced pursuant to Article 893, or if the person is eligible for a first offender pardon for the offense.

• Domestic abuse battery.

La CCrP Art. 978(B). The crimes of violence exception (the first bullet point above) allows for the expungement of only the following crimes of violence: aggravated battery, second degree battery, aggravated criminal damage to property, simple robbery, purse snatching, or illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities; if all of the following conditions are also met:

(a) More than ten years have elapsed since the person completed any sentence, deferred adjudication, or period of probation or parole based on the felony conviction.

(b) The person has not been convicted of any other criminal offense during the ten-year period.

(c) The person has no criminal charge pending against him.

La CCrP Art. 978(E)(1).

If you are interested in seeing if you are eligible for an expungement, give us a call at (318) 459-9111 to schedule a consult.

Or…do you have to give a breath sample when you’re pulled over for DWI?

The short answer: Yes and no.

Louisiana Revised Statutes §32:661 states: "Any person, regardless of age, who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of R.S. 32:662, to a chemical test or tests of his blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substance for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood, and the presence of any abused substance or controlled dangerous substance as set forth in R.S. 40:964 in his blood if arrested for any offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while believed to be under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any abused substance or controlled dangerous substance as set forth in R.S. 40:964." La. R.S. § 32:661(A)(1).

The rest of this statute contains the requirements a law enforcement officer must meet (including advising an arrestee of the consequences of submitting to or refusing the requested chemical test for intoxication) in order for the subsequent test to be admissible in court and also for that test to be used to suspend the arrestee’s driver’s license.

In Louisiana, if a person under arrest for DWI who is asked to submit to a chemical test refuses to provide one, her driver’s license will be suspended. For the first refusal, her license will be suspended for 365 days. For the second or subsequent refusal (within 10 years of each other), her license will be suspended for 730 days.

If a person submits to a chemical test and the result is below .08 (for a person 21 years or older) or below .02 (for a person under 21 years old), his license will not be suspended.

If a person 21 years old or older submits to a chemical test for the first time and the result is over .08, depending on the additional circumstances (whether this was a first, second, or subsequent submission to a chemical test within 10 years; whether the results were above .08 or above .20; etc…), his license will be suspended for a period ranging from 90 days to 4 years, depending on the circumstances. (The DMV puts all of their regulations online here and the specific regulation governing chemical tests can be found here.)

Also, any test results that comply with the procedural requirements laid out in Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 32, Chapter 3, Part XIV, are admissible in court and many allow the State a presumption that the driver whose test results they are was intoxicated at the time she was driving.

The longer answer to the question posed above, then, is that, no, you do not have to give a breath sample when you are arrested for driving while intoxicated; however, there may be serious consequences to your driving privileges if you do not. That said, if you do give a breath sample, there may be serious criminal consequences and consequences to your driving privileges if the results are above the legal limit.

If you or someone you know has been arrested for driving while intoxicated and you would like to schedule a consult, please give us a call at (318) 459-9111.

Since it is the season for holiday parties, it seemed prudent to remind you all that DWI Checkpoints are legal in Louisiana and have been determined to be so by the Louisiana Supreme Court since 2000. In State v. Jackson, 2000-0015 (La. 7/6/00); 764 So.2d 64, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that DWI checkpoints could satisfy the limitations of the Louisiana constitution if they met certain requirements:

[W]e set forth the following guidelines for evaluating whether the checkpoint's intrusiveness will withstand constitutional muster under the Fourth Amendment and Louisiana's Article I, § 5:17

(1) the location, time and duration of a checkpoint, and other regulations for operation of the checkpoint, preferably in written form, established by supervisory or other administrative personnel rather than the field officers implementing the checkpoint;

(2) advance warning to the approaching motorist with signs, flares and other indications to warn of the impending stop in a safe manner and to provide notice of its official nature as a police checkpoint;

(3) detention of the motorist for a minimal length of time; and

(4) use of a systematic nonrandom criteria for stopping motorists.

In evaluating a checkpoint under this test, the guiding principle must be that the procedures utilized curtail the unbridled discretion of the officer in the field. Prouse, 440 U.S. at 662, 99 S.Ct. 1391; **12 Brown, 443 U.S. at 51, 99 S.Ct. 2637.

State v. Jackson, 2000-0015 (La. 7/6/00, 11–12); 764 So.2d 64, 72–73.

Subsequently, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal held that the act of attempting to avoid a checkpoint was sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to detain a driver and conduct further investigation.

If you are out celebrating the holidays with friends and loved ones, please drive carefully and safely.

And if you would like to set up a consult, give us a call at (318) 459-9111.

During the 2022 Regular Legislative Session, the Louisiana Legislature made a few changes to various criminal offenses as well as a couple of additions.

The legislature amended the penalty provisions of Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 14, §56 - Simple criminal damage to property - to state that when the offense involves “damage to multiple properties by a number of distinct acts of the offender which are part of a continuous sequence of events, the aggregate amount of the damages shall determine the grade of the offense.” La. R.S. 14:56(C).

The legislature amended Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 14, §34.2 - Battery of a police officer and §108.2 - Resisting a police officer with force or violence - to include “juvenile detention facility officers” in its definition of “police officer.” La. R.S. 14:34.2

The legislature amended Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 14, §40.1 - Terrorizing - to add the crime of “Menacing.”

“Menacing is the intentional communication of information that the commission of a crime of violence, as defined in R.S. 14:2(B), is imminent or in progress or that a circumstance dangerous to human life exists or is about to exist, when committed under any of the following circumstances:

(a) the actions of the offender cause members of the general public to be in sustained fear for their safety, and a reasonable person would have known that such actions could cause such sustained fear.

(b) the actions of the offender cause the evacuation of a building, a public structure, or a facility of transportation, and a reasonable person would have known that such actions could cause an evacuation.

(c) The actions of the offender cause any other serious disruption to the general public, an a reasonable person would have known that such actions could cause serious disruption to the general public.”

La. R.S. 14:40.1(B)(1). The penalty for this offense is a fine of not more than $1,000 and/or imprisonment with or without hard labor for not more than 2 years. La. R.S. 14:40.1(B)(2).

The Louisiana Legislature also added Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 14, §67.12, which criminalizes the “Theft of a catalytic converter or engine control module.”

If you or someone you know is facing criminal prosecution, give us a call at (318) 459-9111 to schedule a consultation.

Effective August 1, 2022, the Louisiana Legislature amended several provisions of the Louisiana Children’s Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure to define a “child” as a person under the age of 18. These changes primarily impact the videotaping of statements of witnesses or victims in criminal cases.

This act also amended Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 571.1 to establish that the prescriptive period (time within which the case must be initiated) for the following offenses is 30 years when the victim is under the age of 18 and does not begin to run until the victim reaches the age of 18:

• attempted first degree rape,

• attempted second degree rape,

• sexual battery,

• second degree sexual battery,

• oral sexual battery,

• human trafficking,

• trafficking of children for sexual purposes,

• felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile,

• indecent behavior with juveniles,

• pornography involving juveniles,

• molestation of a juvenile or a person with a physical or mental disability,

• prostitution of persons under eighteen,

• enticing persons into prostitution,

• crime against nature,

• aggravated crime against nature, and

• crime against nature by solicitation.

La. C.Cr.P. Art. 571.1.

If you or someone you know is facing prosecution for a crime against a juvenile, give us a call at (318) 459-9111 to schedule a consultation.

Effective August 1, 2022, the Louisiana Legislature made it an affirmative duty of law enforcement to fingerprint those arrested for Driving While Intoxicated.

"It shall be the duty of the sheriff of every parish, the chief of police of each municipality, and every chief officer of every other law enforcement agency operating within this state to record the fingerprints of all persons arrested for any offense involving the operation of a vehicle while intoxicated, including local ordinances pertaining to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.”

La. R.S. 15:545(A)(3).

If you or someone you know is facing prosecution for a driving while intoxicated offense, give us a call at (318) 459-9111 to schedule a consultation.

Effective August 1, 2022, the Louisiana Legislature made some changes to the drug laws.

With regard to marijuana, the legislature enacted Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 162.4 to state explicitly that the mere odor of marijuana is insufficient to provide probable cause for the search of a person’s home without a warrant. La. C.Cr.P. Art. 162.4

The legislature further enacted La. R.S. 32:300.4.1 which prohibits the smoking or vaping of marijuana in a motor vehicle. The fine for violating this statute is $100. The statute further prohibits officers from using this offense as the primary basis for a traffic stop, and establishes it as a non-moving violation which shall not be reported on a person’s driving record. La. R.S. 32:300.4.1.

The Legislature also re-categorized several controlled substances on the drug schedules, notably moving fentanyl to Schedule I. La. R.S. 40:964.

Finally, the Legislature amended Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 14, §403.10 to provide immunity for prosecution for those seeking medical treatment for an individual believed to be suffering from an overdose for the offense of possession of drug paraphernalia. The change also prohibits individuals from seeking medical treatment for an individual suffering an overdose from violations of probation or parole or civil forfeiture of property.

If you or someone you know is facing prosecution for violations of the controlled dangerous substances laws, give us a call at (318) 459-9111 to schedule a consultation.

Effective today, Act 486 of the 2022 Louisiana Legislative Regular Session, amends several state statutes to allow those with criminal convictions to seek review of their conviction by certain state licensing agencies to determine whether they will be denied for the license before spending money to obtain any necessary educational requirements.

Previously, Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 37, §33 simply allowed an “ex-offender” to apply for a state license to perform certain work that required one. The law now states:

“An individual convicted of a crime may request at any time including before obtaining any required education or training, that an entity. issuing licenses to engage in certain fields of work pursuant to state law determine whether the individual’s criminal conviction disqualifies the individual from obtaining a license issued or conferred by the licensing entity.”

La. R.S. 37:33(A). Within 45 days, the licensing agency must notify the applicant whether, “based on the criminal record information submitted, the individual is disqualified from receiving or holding the license about which the individual inquired.” La. R.S. 37:33(B)(1)

The written notice must include:

(1) The specific conviction that is the basis for the intended denial.

(2) The reasons the conviction was determined to be directly related to the licensed activity, including findings for each of the factors provided in R.S. 37:2950 that the licensing authority deemed relevant to the determination.

(3) The right to submit additional evidence relevant to each of the factors listed in R.S. 37:2950 within sixty days, which the licensing authority shall consider before issuing a final determination.

La. R.S. 37:34(A). The final determination must be in writing and give the applicant notice of the right to appeal and notice of the earliest date on which she can reapply. La. R.S. 37:34(B).

The factors that must be considered by each agency are:

(a) The nature and seriousness of the offense.

(b) The nature of the specific duties and responsibilities for which the license, permit, or certificate is required.

(3) (sic) The amount of time that has passed since the conviction.

(4) (sic) Facts relevant to the circumstances of the offense, including any aggravating or mitigating circumstances or social conditions surrounding the commission of the offense.

(5) (sic) Evidence of rehabilitation or treatment undertaken by the person since conviction.

La. R.S. 37:2950(A)(2).

The following agencies are not subject to this change: the State Boxing and Wrestling Commission; the Louisiana Gaming Control Board; the Louisiana Lottery Corporation; the Louisiana State Racing Commission; the office of charitable gaming, Department of Revenue; and the gaming enforcement division, office of state police, Department of Public Safety and Corrections. La. R.S. 37:36(C).

If you or someone you know is facing criminal prosecution and has questions about its impact on your career, call us at (318) 459-9111 to schedule a consultation.

The Legislature during the 2022 Regular Session passed several bills that altered the Illegal Carrying of a Weapons statute.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 14, §95 prohibits the carrying of a weapon under certain circumstances. Act No. 126, which took effect on May 26, 2022, expanded the exceptions in subsection K. Subsection K previously permitted retired members of the judiciary, retired district attorneys, and retired legislators to carry concealed weapons provided they qualify annually in the use of firearms by the Council on Peace Officer Standards and Training and carry valid identification of their retired status. Act 126 extends this exception to now include retired federal judges, justices, and United States attorneys and assistant United States attorneys, and retired federal investigators.

Effective August 1, 2022, additional exceptions were made to allow “city prosecutors, designated assistant city prosecutors, a United States representative from Louisiana and his designated, employed congressional staffer, a United States senator from Louisiana and his designated, employed congressional staffer” and “retired members of the United States Congress” to carry concealed weapons provided they meet the same training requirements as stated above.

Act 587 further altered 14:95 to repeal the prohibitions against carrying a “switchblade” knife. Finally, Act 465 makes “possession of a firearm or carrying of a concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies in violation of La. R.S. 14:95(D)” a crime of violence pursuant to La. R.S. 14:2. La. R.S. 14:95(D) states: “If a violation of this Section is committed during the commission of a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B), and the defendant has a prior conviction of a crime of violence, then the violation of this Section shall be designated as a crime of violence.” La. R.S. 14:95(D).

If you or someone you know is facing a prosecution for possession of a firearm, give us a call at (318) 459-9111 to schedule a consultation.

Effective June 16, 2022, the Louisiana Legislature passed and Governor John Bel Edwards signed into law Act 494, which regulates the publication of booking photos of arrested individuals. Act 494 enacts Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 234.

Article 234 prohibits Louisiana law enforcement agencies from releasing booking photographs of individuals to a person requesting a copy unless it is subject to one of the following exceptions:

“(a) The individual is a fugitive, and a law enforcement officer or agency determines that releasing or disseminating the booking photograph will assist in apprehending the individual.

(b) A law enforcement officer or agency determines that the individual is an imminent threat to an individual or to public safety and determines that releasing or disseminating the booking photograph will assist in reducing or eliminating the threat.

(c) A judge of a court of competent jurisdiction orders the release or dissemination of the booking photograph based on a finding that the release or dissemination is in furtherance of a legitimate interest.

(d) The individual is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a crime, lesser crime, or lesser included offense as defined in Article 558 in response to the same crime for which he was arrested or if there is criminal litigation related to the same crime that is pending or reasonably anticipated.

(e) The individual is charged with a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B), except stalking, or charged with any of the following offenseS:

(i) Sex offenses as defined in R.S. 15:541.

(ii) Human trafficking offenses as defined in R.S. 14:46.2 and 46.3.

(ii) Offenses affecting the public health and morals of minors, R.S. 14:91 et seq.

(iv) Offenses affecting the health and safety of persons with infirmities, R.S. 14:93.3 et seq.

(v) Video voyeurism.

(vi) Cruelty to animals.

(vii) Dogfighting.”

La CCrP Art. 234(C)(1). If a law enforcement agency publishes a booking photo pursuant to one of these exceptions and prior to a conviction, it must contain the disclaimer: “all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty.” La CCrP Art 234(C)(3). This statute further requires “remove-for-pay” websites to remove booking photographs without payment under certain circumstances and establishes that failure to do so will subject the website to prosecution for extortion pursuant to Louisiana Revised States Title 14, §66.

If you or someone you know has been arrested and is seeking criminal representation, call our office at (318) 459-9111 to schedule a consultation.

Terence Tekoh worked as a patient transporter for a hospital in Los Angeles. A patient accused him of sexual assault. The Los Angeles Police Department, upon receiving the report, sent Deputy Carlos Vega to the hospital to interview Tekoh. Deputy Vega took a statement from Tekoh without advising Tekoh of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona.

Tekoh was acquitted after trial and filed a lawsuit against Vega for violating his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. A jury found in favor of Vega in the civil trial. Tekoh appealed and the Ninth Circuit vacated the decision and remanded for a new trial.

The US Supreme Court considered the question:

Is the use of an un-Mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal case sufficient support a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action?

Source: Oyez.org.

The Supreme Court held on June 22, 2022, that the use of an un-Mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal case is not sufficient to support a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. A defendant may not sue an officer in civil court for failing to advise him of his Miranda rights; however, the statement is still subject to suppression in the criminal proceeding against him.

Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo Tribe, pled guilty to an assault charge in the Court of Indian Affairs. Subsequently, he was indicted in federal court for charges arising from the same set of facts. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

He challenged his conviction in federal court alleging that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibited his subsequent conviction in federal court after he was convicted in the Court of Indian Affairs.

The question pending before the Supreme Court this term is:

Does a prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses trigger the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause?

Source: Oyez.org

In 1997, William Wooden broke into a storage facility and stole objects from 10 different storage units. He was charged with and subsequently pled guilty to 10 counts of burglary. In 2014, officers found him in possession of a rifle and charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm and was indicted by a federal court. After trial, and during his sentencing hearing, Wooden was determined to be an Armed Career Criminal in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(e).

The Supreme Court addressed the following question:

Are offenses committed as part of a single criminal spree but sequentially in time “committed on occasions different from one another” for purposes of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act?

In a unanimous decision drafted by Justice Kagan, the Court found that offenses committed as part of a single criminal episode did not occur on different “occasions” and thus count as only one offense for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Source: Oyez.org.

Larry Thompson was arrested for resisting an officer and obstructing governmental administration after he refused to allow officers entry into his home when they told him they did not have a warrant. He spent two days in jail and after three months his case was dismissed. The initial complaint was made by his sister-in-law who believed diaper rash on her nephew was a sign of abuse. After EMTs arrived on scene and found nothing wrong, four law enforcement officers arrived and Mr. Thompson, who did not know about his sister-in-law’s call, denied them entry, resulting in his arrest.

After his case was dismissed, Mr. Thompson filed a lawsuit against the officers for malicious prosecution. The trial court dismissed the case because it found that a dismissal was not a proceeding that “formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence,” or “ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence”.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court held that an acquittal was not required to sustain an §1983 action.

Source: Oyez.org

In April 2006, two men got into a fight with several other people in the Bronx. Shortly thereafter, someone opened fire with a 9 millimeter handgun and a child in a passing car was killed. Nicholas Morris was identified by witnesses as the shooter and pursuant to a warrant, officers found a 9 millimeter cartridge and ammunition for a .357 revolver in his home. They did not find the weapon. Morris’ trial ended in a mistrial and rather than re-try him, Morris pled to possessing a firearm at the scene of the shooting. Because the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to prove possession of a firearm at the scene, Morris testified during the plea that he possessed a .357 revolver at the scene.

In 2013, Darrell Hemphill was charged with the murder. At trial, Hemphill presented evidence that a 9 millimeter cartridge was located at Morris’ home shortly after the shooting. In response, the State presented the testimony of Morris at his plea that he had possessed a .357 revolver at the scene.

Hemphill appealed and the question presented to the United States Supreme Court was:

When, if ever, does a criminal defendant who “opens the door” to evidence that would otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence also forfeit his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause?

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held:

The Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses against them, and the Court has recognized no open-ended exceptions to this requirement—only those exceptions established at the time of the founding. In People v. Reid, New York’s highest court held that a criminal defendant “opens the door” to evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause if the evidence was “reasonably necessary” to correct a misleading impression made by the defense’s argument. Contrary to the State’s contention, the Reid rule is not merely procedural, but a substantive principle of evidence that dictates what material is relevant and admissible. Such an exception is antithetical to the Confrontation Clause.

Source: Oyez.com.

In Lousiana, some cases are tried by a judge and some are tried by a jury. The dividing line between the two are that cases in which the defendant may be sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor must be tried by a jury, unless the defendant waives that right and chooses to be tried by a judge. This is solely the defendant’s right to waive. The State cannot force a defendant to give up his right to trial by jury.

In Louisiana, jury trials are also broken down into two types: 6-person juries and 12-person juries.

A defendant is entitled to a 12-person jury trial when the charge for which he is being prosecuted is either capital (meaning he can be executed or imprisoned at hard labor for life) or if the sentence requires that he be sentenced to hard labor. If the potential punishment only carries the possibility of imprisonment at hard labor, then the defendant is only entitled to a trial by 6 jurors.

See Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 782.

So I usually write one of these about once every six months or so to update on any changes to the expungement law that have occurred in the intervening time. I can’t remember the last time I wrote one, so it seems like a reasonable enough time has passed to write another.

Expungements, in Louisiana, are a method by which a person arrested for a crime (felony or misdemeanor) under certain circumstances may remove the record of that arrest from public access on his criminal record (rap sheet). Some of that language needs clarification as it applies to expungements, so here’s some terminology for you:

• Rap Sheet - this is the document maintained by the Louisiana State Police, Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information (LSP) which compiles all records of arrests throughout the State of Louisiana as well as the final dispositions of those matters.

• Disposition - how the case finally resolved, whether that be a rejection by the prosecutor’s office, dismissal, conviction, guilty plea, etc… If the case resulted in a conviction, the rap sheet will show the charge the defendant was convicted of as well as the sentence.

• Arrest record - a list of the crime for which the individual was arrested (i.e. booked into jail or issued a summons for), the date of the arrest, arresting agency, and final disposition.

In Louisiana, an expungement does not erase one’s criminal record. It does not ‘make it like it never happened.’ In Louisiana, an expungement merely orders LSP to remove that record from access by the general public. This means that the record will still exist and be accessible to certain individuals, groups, or organizations, but not to the general public. Some examples of groups who can still access the record are: law enforcement and certain state licensing agencies including the Nursing Board, Medical Board, Louisiana State Supreme Court (for purposes of bar admissions), and Insurance Board, to name a few.

Under some circumstances, a person arrested for an offense can apply for an expungement if his arrest did not result in conviction, or if he was arrested for a misdemeanor or a felony.

Expungement eligible…If not convicted:

1. if the time limits for prosecution have passed.

2. if the district attorney declined to prosecute (including if the person participated in a pre-trial diversion program unless that participation in pre-trial diversion was for a charge of Driving While Intoxicated, in which case the person will not be eligible for expungement until 5 years from the date of his arrest have passed).

3. if the person was found to be factually innocent and entitled to compensation.

…if convicted of a misdemeanor:

1. if the conviction was set aside pursuant to Article 894.

2. if 5 years have passed from completion of the sentence and the person has not been convicted of any felonies in the intervening 5 years nor has any pending felonies.

A person convicted of a misdemeanor that arose from a Sex Offense (as defined in La. R.S. 15:541), or domestic abuse battery, or stalking is not eligible for expungement.

…if convicted of a felony:

1. if the conviction is set aside pursuant to Article 893(E).

2. if 10 years have passed from completion of the sentence and the person has not been convicted of any criminal offense in the intervening 10 years nor has any pending criminal charges.

3. if the person is eligible for a first offender pardon pursuant to Article IV, §5(E)(1) of the Louisiana Constitution unless the conviction was for a crime of violence (as defined in La.R.S. 14:2) or a sex offense (as defined in La. R.S. 15:541).

Certain offenses are not eligible for expungement:

• a felony crime of violence (as defined in La. R.S. 14:2)

  • except aggravated battery, second degree battery, aggravated criminal property damage, simple robbery, purse snatching, or illegal use of a weapon only after a contradictory hearing on the motion for expungement is held.

• a Sex Offense (as defined in La.R.S. 15:541)

• certain controlled dangerous substances offenses

  • except simple possession, possession with intent to distribute, offenses set aside pursuant to Article 893(E), or offenses that carry a penalty of less than 5 years imprisonment)

• and Domestic Abuse Battery.

A person arrested for a felony but convicted of a misdemeanor may also be eligible for an interim expungement of the felony arrest under certain circumstances.

If you or someone you know is curious about their eligibility for an expungement, give us a call to set up a consult at (318) 459-9111.

In honor of the 230th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights and week 8, another criminal defense attorney favorite: the Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The Eighth Amendment’s short and sweet language is some of the most complicated and has spawned the most litigation in the Supreme Court. The questions of what is excessive, cruel, or unusual have spawned a great deal of litigation and the Court’s decisions on these matters have evolved over time as our society has evolved and changed. Things that were one thought perfectly fine are now considered cruel and unconscionable. This area of the law will continue to change as our society changes what we think constitutes cruelty.

Further reading:

• Kahler v. Kansas, in which the Court answered the question: “May a state abolish the insanity defense without violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?” Answer: Yes.

• Madison v. Alabama, in which the Court addressed the questions: “(1) Does the Eighth Amendment and the Court’s jurisprudence prohibit a state from executing a prisoner whose mental disability leaves him with no memory of the commission of the capital offense? and (2) Does the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment preclude a state from executing a prisoner who suffers from severe cognitive dysfunction such that he cannot remember the crime for which he was convicted or understand the circumstances of his scheduled execution?” The Court found that: “The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a state from executing a prisoner who cannot remember committing his crime, but it does prohibit executing a prisoner who cannot rationally understand the reasons for his execution, whether that inability is due to psychosis or dementia.”

• Timbs v. Indiana, in which the Court addressed the question: “Has the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause been incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment?” Answer: Yes.

• Miller v. Alabama, in which the Court answered the question: “Does the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year-old child violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?” Answer: Yes.

In honor of the 230th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights and week 6, one of the favorites of criminal defense lawyers: the Sixth Amendment!

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Sixth Amendment contains a lot of the rights which form the basis of our criminal justice system in the United States. This amendment requires that trials be both “speedy and public.” This, unfortunately, does not mean that the trial has to happen on the defendant’s preferred schedule, but it does mean that the State cannot simply hold an individual in custody indefinitely without resolution of his charges. It also requires that his trial be open to the public so that observers can enter and view the proceedings and so that the defendant knows that his trial will be subject to the oversight of his community, should they choose to avail themselves of that opportunity.

The defendant must be advised of the nature of the charges against him. This means he cannot be tried for a charge he hasn’t been advised he has been accused of. He has the right to confront the witnesses against him, which means they are required to come to court and testify openly and he has the right, on his own or through his counsel, to ask them questions relevant to their testimony. He can subpoena his own witnesses to court to testify on his behalf and cannot be prohibited from doing so provided their testimony is relevant. Finally, he has a right to an attorney to represent him and defend his case.

Further reading:

• Kaley v. United States, in which the Court answered the question: “Do the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a district court to allow a criminal defendant to challenge the evidence behind her charges in a pretrial hearing when a protective order freezes the assets necessary for the defendant to hire her attorney?” Answer: No. The Defendant does not have a right to use illegally obtained assets to hire an attorney.

• Padilla v. Kentucky, in which the Court answered the questions: “(1) Is the mandatory deportation that results from a guilty plea to trafficking in marijuana a "collateral consequence" that relieves counsel of an affirmative duty to advise his client per the guarantees of the Sixth Amendment? (2) Assuming deportation is a "collateral consequence", can counsel's gross misadvice about deportation constitute a ground for setting aside a guilty plea that is induced by that advice?” Answers: (1) No, and (2) not reached because of the answer to (1).

• Montejo v. Louisiana, in which the Court addressed the question: “After the appointment of an attorney, does a defendant need to take additional steps to accept the appointment in order to secure the protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment?” Answer: Not necessarily.

• Hemphill v. New York, in which the Court will address the question: “When, if ever, does a criminal defendant who “opens the door” to evidence that would otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence also forfeit his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause?”

• Hardy v. Cross, in which the Court answered the question: “Did the steps taken to attempt to locate [the witness] satisfy the Confrontation Clause's good faith effort requirement?” Answer: Yes.

• Bullcoming v. New Mexico, in which the Court addressed the question: “Can a blood-alcohol test admitted without the actual testimony of the person who prepared the results violate a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause?” Answer: Yes.

• Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, in which the Court addressed the question: “Is a state forensic analyst's laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution "testimonial" evidence subject to the demands of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington?” Yes.