State Of Louisiana VS Michael Lee Jackson (2019KA0067R)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA 01 COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2019 KA 0067R STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MICHAEL LEE JACKSON Judgment rendered: SEP 18 2020 On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana No. 09- 16- 0008, Sec. II The Honorable Richard D. Anderson, Judge Presiding Hillar C. Moore, III Attorneys for Appellee, District Attorney Stacy L. Wright Assistant District Attorney State of Louisiana Baton Rouge, Louisiana Lieu Vo Clark Attorney for Defendant/Appellant Louisiana Appellate Project Michael Lee Jackson Mandeville, Louisiana BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ. HOLDRIDGE, J. Defendant, Michael Lee Jackson, was charged by bill of information with video voyeurism, a violation of La. R. S. 14: 283. He pled not guilty. After a trial by jury, defendant was found guilty as charged by a non -unanimous jury verdict. The trial court adjudicated defendant as a fourth -felony habitual offender and imposed a term of 80 years imprisonment at hard labor. Defendant' s conviction and sentence are vacated, and we remand to the trial court for a new trial. This court affirmed defendant' s conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Jackson, 2019- 0067 ( La. unpublished). App. 1st Cir. 9/ 27/ 19), 2019 WL 4739241, at * 4 However, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted defendant' s writ application and remanded the case to this court " for further proceedings in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020)." State v. Jackson, 2019- 02023 ( La. 6/ 12/ 20), In the event the " trial court," So. 3d , 2020 WL 3424906. non -unanimous jury claim was not preserved for review in the the Supreme Court ordered this court to " consider the issue as part of an error patent review." Id.; see La. Code Crim. P. art. 920( 2). Defendant did not object to the verdict or challenge the constitutionality of the verdict in the trial court below, however, on error patent review, the minutes reveal the jury verdict was eleven -to -one.' In Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1397, the United States Supreme Court overruled Apodaca v. Oregon, 2 406 U.S. 404, 92 S. Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 ( 1972) and held that the right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, incorporated against the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment Defendant did raise the claim in his original appeal. 2 Oregon' s non -unanimous jury verdict provision of its state constitution was challenged in Apodaca. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 92 S. Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 ( 1972), decided with Apodaca, upheld Louisiana' s then -existing constitutional and statutory provisions allowing nine -to -three jury verdicts. 2 of the United States Constitution, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. The Ramos Court further noted that its ruling applied to those defendants convicted of felonies by non -unanimous verdicts whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1406. Thus, given the Ramos Court' s declaration of the unconstitutionality of non -unanimous jury verdicts, defendant' s conviction and sentence based on a non -unanimous jury verdict must be vacated. CONCLUSION For these reasons, we vacate defendant' s conviction and sentence and remand to the trial court for a new trial. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE NEW TRIAL. C VACATED; REMANDED FOR
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.
