State Of Louisiana VS Blayson Paul Fife
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2020 KA 0140 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS BLAYSON PAUL FIFE Judgment Rendered: DEC 3 0 2020 Appealed from the Twenty -First Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Livingston State of Louisiana Docket Number 36276 Honorable Robert H. Morrison, Judge Presiding Scott M. Perrilloux Counsel for Appellee District Attorney Zachary Daniels Assistant District Attorney State of Louisiana Livingston, Louisiana Prentice L. White Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Baton Rouge, Louisiana Blayson Paul Fife BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ. GUIDRY , J. The defendant, Blayson Paul Fife, was charged by grand jury indictment with first-degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 30. The defendant pled not guilty and, following a trial, was found guilty by a ten -to -two jury verdict of the responsive offense of second- degree murder, a violation of La. R. S. 14: 30. 1. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. designating three assignments of error. The defendant now appeals, In his first assignment of error, the defendant challenges his conviction by a non -unanimous jury verdict.' In his second assignment of error, the defendant argues the trial court' s denial of several cause challenges during voir dire constituted reversible error. In his third assignment of error, the defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to include aggravated burglary as a responsive verdict in the jury instructions. In the recent decision of Ramos v. Louisiana, 1397, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020), the United States U. S. , 140 S. Ct. 1390, Supreme Court overruled Apodaca v. Oregon,' 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 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. 1 The defendant filed a pretrial motion to declare a non -unanimous jury verdict unconstitutional. 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 Accordingly, the defendant' s conviction and sentence are set aside, and the case is remanded for a new trial. The other issues raised on appeal are rendered moot. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE NEW TRIAL. 3 SET ASIDE; 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.
