A very interesting decision by the Louisiana Supreme court in Louisiana versus Ronald Gasser – June 29th 2022.
Ronald Gasser was convicted by the jury, after a full trial on the merits, was not convicted on the charge of second degree murder, the jury convicted him on the lesser charge of manslaughter.
The Supreme court ruled that the jury’s refusal to convict Glasser on the charge of second degree murder counts as an exoneration on that charge. Therefore the State is precluded from reinstituting the charge of second degree murder. The State is limited to the lesser charge of manslaughter.
The Supreme court used two arguments to reach its decision: Double Jeopardy and Implied Acquittal.
Double Jeopardy: The defendant was already lawfully tried on the charge of second degree murder. The jury failed to convict the defendant of that charge in that trial. So for the retrial, the State cannot reinstitute the charge of second degree murder because the defendant was already tried for that crime.
“…double jeopardy precludes the State from prosecuting defendant on the higher charge of second degree murder when he was lawfully convicted of the lesser offense of manslaughter.”
McCALLUM, J. Page 5
Implied acquittal: The refusal of a jury to convict on the great charge is considered by the courts to be an implied acquittal by the jury of that charge.
“Second, well-settled case law reflects that the conviction of a lesser included offense is an implied acquittal of the higher charges. The importance of this concept is underscored in its codification by the Louisiana legislature in La. C.Cr.P. art. 598 A, infra.”
McCALLUM, J. page 5
Judge McCallum, J. cites that the prohibition against people being tried for the same crime multiple times to be one of the oldest ideas in western civilization.
The decision does allow the State to pursue and try Gasser on the lesser charge of manslaughter.
“Fear and abhorrence of governmental power to try people twice for the same conduct is one of the oldest ideas found in western civilization.”
McCALLUM, J. citing
Cherry v. Dir., State Bd. of Corr., 613 F.2d 1262, 1266 (5th Cir. 1980)(quoting Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 151-155, 79 S.Ct. 676, 696 (Black, J., dissenting))
Comments are closed