State Of Louisiana v. Blayson Paul Fife ( 2020 )

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 State of Louisiana
Zachary Daniels
Assistant District Attorney
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
parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The defendant now appeals,
designating three assignments of error. 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, U. S. , 140 S. Ct. 1390,
1397, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020), the United States 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 SET ASIDE; REMANDED FOR
NEW TRIAL.
3