State Of Louisiana VS Joshua Sadler
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA h1 a NO 2011 KA 0240 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JOSHUA SADLER Judgment Rendered tune 10 2011 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No 03 09 0274 I 9 Honorable Richard D Anderson Judge Presiding Lieu T Vo Clark Attorney for Defendant Appellant Mandeville LA Joshua Sadler Hillar C Moore III Attorneys for Appellee District Attorney State of Louisiana Allison Miller Rutzen Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge LA EWMEM BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ HIGGINBOTHAM J The defendant Joshua Sadler was charged by grand jury indictment with second degree murder a violation of LSAR 14 He pled not guilty The S 30 1 defendant was tried by a jury and convicted as charged Polling of the jury revealed the verdict was tentotwo The defendant filed a motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal At the conclusion of a hearing the trial court denied the motion The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence The defendant now appeals urging in a single assignment of error his conviction by a non unanimous verdict violated his rights under the United States and Louisiana Constitutions Finding no merit in the assignment of error we affirm the defendant conviction s and sentence FACTS On December 22 2008 at approximately 7 p the victim Cary Ray 00 m Dungan picked up his friend Robert O and went to Lambert bar in Connell s Baton Rouge to celebrate O birthday s Connell Kacey Atkinson a female acquaintance of Dungan later met the men at the bar According to Atkinson s she often went out with Dungan in exchange for monetary payment Later that night the group left Lambert and went to Dancer nightclub on Airline s s Highway While at the club Dungan used cash to purchase drinks for his friends At sometime thereafter Atkinson spoke to the defendant on the telephone The defendant later arrived at Dancer and sat in the back of the club According s to Atkinson the defendant stayed at Dancer for approximately fifteen to twenty s minutes and then he left The defendant did not make any contact with Atkinson at s Dancer At trial Atkinson testified that at the time of the shooting she and the defendant were romantically involved and lived together She further testified the defendant was aware that Dungan often gave her money The defendant also knew that Atkinson was out with Dungan on the night in question However Atkinson denied any involvement in the incident 2 Eventually the group left Dancer and Dungan drove O home to s Connell his apartment on Sherwood Forest Boulevard Atkinson accompanied Dungan Dungan and Atkinson visited with O briefly at his home before deciding Connell to leave After Dungan and Atkinson exited the apartment the defendant walked up with a gun and according to Atkinson hit Dungan on his head with the gun and demanded that he get in the truck Dungan reached into his vehicle grabbed a handgun and shot the defendant The defendant responded with several gunshots The defendant sustained a gunshot wound to his neck and elbow Dungan was shot in his upper abdomen right thigh and left thigh The injury to the abdomen perforated Dungan colon and left kidney causing massive hemorrhage s to his abdomen The injury was fatal The defendant initially denied shooting the victim In an initial statement to the police the defendant claimed that he and two other individuals followed Dungan from Dancer and planned to rob him The defendant claimed one of his s accomplices shot the victim and the defendant ran away The defendant later confessed to shooting Dungan and admitted that he acted alone He claimed that he simply approached Dungan and ordered him to freeze Dungan then retrieved a gun from his vehicle and shot the defendant in the neck The defendant claimed he was running away when he started shooting back towards Dungan NON UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues the tentotwo verdict is in violation of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions While the defendant concedes that the verdict is in conformity with the present state of the law the defendant maintains that in light of recent jurisprudence LSA C art 782A P Cr and LSA Const art I 17A providing for jury verdicts of tentotwo in cases in which punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution 3 The punishment for second degree murder is life imprisonment with confinement at hard labor See LSAR 14 B S 30 1 We have previously held in State v Smith 060820 La App 1 st Cir 12 952 So 1 16 writ denied 06 28 2d 070211 La 9 964 So 352 that 07 28 2d Louisiana Constitution article I 17A and LSA C art 782A P Cr provide that in cases where punishment is necessarily at hard labor the case shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors ten of whom must concur to render a verdict Under both state and federal jurisprudence a criminal conviction by a less than unanimous jury does not violate a defendant right to trial by jury specified by the s Sixth Amendment and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment 32 2d Ed L See Apodaca v Oregon 406 U 404 92 S 1628 S Ct 184 1972 State v Belgard 410 So 720 726 2d 1982 La State v Shanks 971885 pp 15 16 La App 1st Cir 98 29 6 715 So 1 1 2d 57 6465 The defendant reliance on Blakely v Washington 542 U s S 296 124 S 2531 159 L 403 2004 Ring v Arizona 536 Ct 2d Ed S U 584 122 S 2428 153 L 556 2002 Apprendi v New Ct 2d Ed Jersey 530 U 466 120 S 2348 147 L 435 2000 and S Ct 2d Ed Jones v United States 526 U 227 119 S 1215 143 L S Ct 2d Ed 311 1999 is misplaced These Supreme Court decisions do not address the issue of the constitutionality of a non unanimous jury verdict rather they address the issue of whether the assessment of facts in determining an increased penalty of a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum is within the province of the jury or the trial judge sitting alone Nothing in these decisions suggests that the s jury verdict must be unanimous for a defendant conviction to be s constitutional 17A and LSA Accordingly LSA Const art 1 P Cr C art 782A are not unconstitutional and hence not violative of the defendant Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury s Our Supreme Court has also affirmed the constitutionality of Article 782 See State v Bertrand 08 2215 La 3 6 So 738 739 09 17 3d The Bertrand Court specifically found that a non unanimous twelveperson jury verdict is constitutional and that Article 782 does not violate the Fifth Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments Id 6 So at 743 3d For these same reasons we find this assignment of error is without merit Considering the foregoing we affirm the defendant conviction and sentence s CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
