Gay Gaskins

This case was a criminal appeal in Louisiana involving defendant Burks. The Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, reviewed the imposed sentence and issued a decision without a published opinion. The court vacated the sentence and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Knight, the defendant was charged with vehicular homicide after a one-car accident that killed his passenger; both men were legally intoxicated, and the defendant initially admitted to police at the scene that he was the driver before later denying it at the hospital. A jury convicted him of the responsive verdict of negligent homicide, and he received a five-year hard labor sentence. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was driving and that his statements to the first responding trooper should have been suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the initial statements and other evidence sufficiently established the defendant as the driver under the Jackson v. Virginia standard, and that the trooper's questioning was a non-custodial preliminary accident investigation not requiring Miranda warnings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an inmate, Dale Neidlinger, suing prison officials at Caldwell Correctional Center for alleged negligent medical treatment of a spider bite infection on his knee that developed into a serious condition requiring surgery, skin grafts, and resulting in lasting physical impairment. Neidlinger claimed the defendants delayed adequate care and failed to provide timely antibiotics or hospital transport, breaching their duty to provide reasonable medical services. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed after de novo review, holding that the record showed timely and appropriate care meeting the applicable standard without evidence of unreasonableness or breach of duty, and that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court noted the prison's duty requires reasonable medical attention for inmates but does not demand on-site hospital facilities for every risk.

criminal lawhealthcaretorts & liability

This case involves a father's request to modify a prior consent judgment granting joint custody of the parties' son, with the mother as domiciliary parent, to a 50/50 shared physical custody arrangement. After the father presented his evidence at a hearing on his rule to modify, the trial court granted the mother's motion for involuntary dismissal. The appellate court affirmed, noting that the father bore the burden of proving both a material change in circumstances since the original decree and that the proposed modification served the child's best interest. Although some life changes had occurred over nearly ten years, such as the mother's completion of medical training and the father's remarriage and divorce, the court found these insufficient to meet the burden, as the child had thrived under the existing arrangement with stability and continuity.

family law

This case concerned the adjudication of a 16-year-old juvenile, PRR, as delinquent for the offense of indecent behavior with juveniles under La. R.S. 14:81, based on allegations that he engaged in sexual contact with his three-year-old female cousin during a family gathering. The juvenile court found the victim credible and adjudicated PRR delinquent, leading to an appeal. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, affirmed the adjudication and disposition. The appellate court held that the evidence, including the victim's statements to multiple parties, was sufficient to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and it deferred to the juvenile court's assessment of credibility despite noted inconsistencies in the testimony and medical evidence.

criminal law

The case involved the Louisiana Department of Social Services petitioning to terminate the parental rights of mother S.M.T. (and the fathers) of minor children R.L.T. and S.A.T. after the children were removed from custody in 2007 due to the mother's drug-related arrest and neglect, adjudicated in need of care, and placed in foster care. The trial court terminated the parental rights, finding insufficient compliance with reunification case plans, and the court of appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that the DSS proved by clear and convincing evidence that the mother had not substantially complied with case plan requirements such as drug testing, psychological evaluation, visitation, and stable housing over more than two years, her pattern of incarceration and substance abuse indicated no reasonable expectation of improvement, and termination served the children's best interests by freeing them for adoption.

family lawcriminal law

In State v. Angel, the defendant, who was on probation for a prior drug conviction, was arrested after failing a drug test and had his property searched by probation officers and deputies, leading to charges of possessing methamphetamine and amphetamine as well as operating a clandestine laboratory. After the trial court denied his motion to suppress the seized evidence, Angel entered a Crosby plea reserving his right to appeal and was sentenced to prison terms. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and the convictions. The court reasoned that probationers have reduced privacy expectations, the officers acted under a valid arrest warrant with reasonable suspicion based on the failed test and plain-view observations of drug paraphernalia, and the searches of the trailer and boathouse were therefore permissible without a warrant.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Allen, the defendant was charged with illegal possession of stolen things, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Under a plea agreement, he pled guilty to the first two charges in exchange for the state dropping the third charge and not filing a multiple offender bill. The trial court sentenced him to six years at hard labor after reviewing his criminal history, family circumstances, and the factors in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, finding him a poor candidate for probation. On appeal, Allen argued the sentence was excessive given his personal background and lack of recent offenses, but the court affirmed, holding that the sentence was within statutory limits, accounted for the plea benefits, and showed no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

criminal lawprocedure

In Brown v. Brown, a divorce proceeding under La. C.C. art. 102, Jeams Brown appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to reduce or terminate interim spousal support, its award of $500 monthly support to Angelique Brown, its finding of $7,000 in arrears plus contempt for prior nonpayment, and related sanctions including jail time and attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that interim support under La. C.C. arts. 111 and 113 is determined by the recipient spouse's needs, the payor's ability to pay (including separate property assets), and the marital standard of living, without requiring a fault finding. The court further held that prenuptial agreements waiving alimony pendente lite (now interim support) are void as against public policy and that the trial court's income and needs assessments were within its discretion.

family law

In Wright v. Larson, the case came before the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, on a writ application. The court issued a decision without a published opinion. A request for rehearing was subsequently filed and denied by the panel of judges. No further details on the underlying dispute or specific legal analysis are available because the opinion was not published.

procedure

The case involved a plaintiff who was injured after falling into a manhole owned by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) and who initially sued the City of Shreveport within the one-year prescriptive period for delictual actions. After discovery showed the City did not own or maintain the drainage basin, the plaintiff amended his petition to add the DOTD as a defendant more than a year after the accident. The trial court sustained the DOTD's exception of prescription, finding that the amended petition did not relate back under La. C.C.P. art. 1153 because the City and DOTD were distinct legal entities with no identity of interest or agreement for maintenance, so the DOTD received no timely notice. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the criteria for relation back were not met and that the City’s dismissal meant prescription against the DOTD was not interrupted.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Jatazz Rashun Warren, who was convicted of three counts of second degree murder and one count of attempted second degree murder after deliberately crashing his PT Cruiser into a minivan stopped at a red light on a Louisiana highway, killing three occupants and severely injuring a fourth. The incident stemmed from an altercation with his girlfriend during a domestic dispute, where the defendant had a history of violence toward her and had threatened to kill her if she left him. The court affirmed the convictions and the consecutive sentences of three life terms without parole plus 50 years without parole, finding the evidence from witnesses, including observations of the erratic driving and struggle inside the vehicle, sufficient to support the verdicts under a theory of transferred intent. The court further held that the consecutive sentences were justified by the heinous circumstances and the defendant's choice to target an occupied vehicle rather than an immovable object.

criminal law

In this Louisiana case arising from a 2005 car accident, plaintiff Dana Hudson, a passenger injured when another driver ran a stop sign, sued Progressive Security Insurance Company both as the liability insurer and for uninsured motorist coverage of the at-fault driver. Hudson had previously settled with the other vehicle's insurer (State Farm) and signed a broad release discharging the insureds, State Farm, and 'all other persons, firms or corporations' from claims related to the accident. The trial court granted Progressive's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the release language was clear and unambiguous, applied to Progressive as a third-party beneficiary via stipulation pour autrui, and barred the claims; parol evidence was inadmissible to alter its terms. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the release's comprehensive wording released all potential obligors including Progressive without any reservation of rights against solidary obligors.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Boris Trent Bartley and Zachary Bartley suing defendants Clint and Craig Fondren, doing business as C & C Automotive, for damages arising from allegedly defective repairs to their 1996 Camaro, including an engine swap from V6 to V8, for which they paid $7,500. After the plaintiffs presented their case-in-chief at trial, the court granted the defendants' motion for involuntary dismissal. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof by not providing expert testimony or other sufficient evidence of defective workmanship, their lay testimony was insufficient and subject to credibility doubts, and they did not call key witnesses, leading to an adverse presumption.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Laverto Shyne, who was charged by bill of information with two counts of distribution of cocaine. Pursuant to a plea bargain, he pled guilty to one count in exchange for dismissal of the second count and the state's agreement not to seek sentencing enhancements. The trial court imposed a sentence of five years at hard labor, with the first two years to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Shyne appealed, claiming the sentence was excessive. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, affirmed, holding that the sentence was within the statutory range of two to thirty years, not grossly disproportionate to the offense in light of the defendant's prior criminal history, and not shocking to the sense of justice.

criminal lawprocedure

This case, State v. Washington, reached the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, under docket number KA 08 43735 as an appeal from a lower court decision. The three-judge panel consisting of Gaskins, Caraway, and Lolley issued a decision without a published opinion. The court affirmed the ruling below, though the excerpt provides no details on the underlying facts, charges, or specific legal analysis.

criminal law

This case involved a custody dispute following the divorce of Chantelle and Andrew Teague, where Chantelle appealed a trial court judgment granting sole custody of their two minor children to Andrew's parents, Chris and LaDonna Teague, while also raising issues regarding exceptions, time limits on testimony, protection orders, visitation, and support. The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the award of custody to the grandparents but amended the judgment to prohibit Andrew from residing in the home or having unsupervised access to the children due to his history of habitual drug use, including marijuana, cocaine, and other substances, which the court found would cause substantial harm. The court also specified a visitation schedule for Chantelle and granted certain exceptions, while finding her requests for interim spousal support and child support moot or unsupported by the evidence of her ability to earn income. The reasoning centered on the record showing extensive drug involvement by Andrew during the marriage, the grandparents' role in providing stability, and the need to protect the children without granting custody to either biological parent.

family law

This case involved a medical malpractice claim brought by the daughters of Donna Wiley against Dr. John M. Lipka after she died from complications following surgery on December 4, 2001, to treat a bleeding duodenal ulcer. The plaintiffs alleged that the doctor breached the standard of care by failing to timely recognize and treat a duodenal stump leak, a known surgical complication, despite her deteriorating condition in the ICU. A medical review panel had found no breach, but after trial with expert testimony from both sides, the court entered judgment against Dr. Lipka. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported a finding of breach and causation based on the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts regarding the doctor's response to the post-operative infection and leak.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case concerned James Calhoun's appeal of his conviction for aggravated burglary under Louisiana law and his enhanced sentence as a second felony offender. A jury found Calhoun guilty based on the victim's testimony that Calhoun and two accomplices forced their way into the victim's home, assaulted him with a knife and gun, and stole money and property. The trial court sentenced him to 27 years at hard labor, which the appellate court upheld. The Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, reasoned that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, including the victim's in-court and lineup identifications, and that the sentence complied with statutory guidelines by accounting for aggravating factors like the use of weapons and mitigating factors like Calhoun's lack of a weapon. The court also found the sentence not grossly disproportionate to the offense.

criminal law

In Alexander v. Brookshire Grocery Co., a former employee sued her employer for workers' compensation indemnity benefits and medical treatment after tearing her left rotator cuff on the job in 2004, undergoing surgeries, and continuing to report pain that she attributed to reflex sympathetic dystrophy. The workers' compensation judge denied her claims for benefits beyond a light-duty position offered by the employer, finding that multiple physicians approved her return to work, that she had made inconsistent statements about a subsequent home fall, and that she exaggerated her impairments and lacked credibility. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the employer had properly offered suitable employment within her restrictions, that her mental health complaints were not caused by the workplace injury or compensable under the statute, and that the denial of benefits was not arbitrary. The court applied the manifest error standard to uphold the factual findings on credibility and ability to work.

labor & employment