STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RON C. YOUNGBLOOD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUSAN M. CHEHAROY CHIEF JUDGE FREDERICKA H. WICKER JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON ROBERT A. CHAISSON STEPHEN J WINDHORST HANS J. LIWEBERG JOHN J. MOLAISON. JR. JUDGES Qlnurl nf J\ppwl FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA IOI DERBIGNY STREET (70053) POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 MARY E. LEGNON CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK SUSAN S. BUCHHOLz FIRST DEPUTY CLERK MELISSA C. LEDET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF 1504) 376-1400 1504) 376--1498 FAX WWW.FIFTHCIRCUIT.ORG January 25, 2021 RE: STATE OF LA VS. RON C. YOUNGBLOOD Appeal Number 18-KA-445 To all recipients of the opinion in the above referenced case: On December 9, 2020, an opinion was rendered in the above case, which was on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court. After reviewing the opinion, the following correction has been made: On page 2, paragraph 2, line 17 "second degree murder" was changed to read "first degree murder.'' A copy of the corrected page is enclosed. Please substitute the corrected page in the opinion previously sent. Curtis B. Pursell Clerk of Court CBP/nfv Enclosure a jury trial—as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment— requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. The Court concluded, “There can be no question either that the Sixth Amendment's unanimity requirement applies to state and federal trials equally...So if the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to support a conviction in federal court, it requires no less in state court.” Id., 140 S.Ct. at 1397. According to Ramos, Louisiana will have to retry defendants who were convicted of serious offenses by non-unanimous juries and whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. In a per curiam opinion, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted Defendant’s writ, finding “[t]he present matter was pending on direct review when Ramos v. Louisiana was decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies." State v. Youngblood, 296 So.3d at 1022. The supreme court remanded the matter and directed this Court conduct a new errors patent review in light of Ramos. In this matter, the jury was polled on the record on the last day of Defendant’s trial. The September 29, 2017 transcript shows that Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree murder (count one) by a verdict of 11-1, and the verdicts for count two and count three were unanimous. Because the jury verdicts for counts two (for which Defendant was found not guilty) and three were unanimous, we find that there is no error, and no corrective action is required pursuant to Ramos. Accordingly, we will not disturb our original opinion regarding count three. But, because the verdict for count one was not unanimous, and the instant case is still on direct review we find that, pursuant to Ramos, Defendant is entitled to a new trial on count one.1 1 As part of the errors patent review, this Court considered sufficiency of the evidence as required by State v. Raymo, 419 So.2d 858 (La.1982) and State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La.1992). We find that the State offered evidence at trial that a jury could find sufficient to establish all of the elements of the crimes of which Defendant was accused. Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to an acquittal under Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.D. 40, 101 S.Ct. 970, 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981). 18-KA-445 2
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.
