Insight

A Presumption of Constitutionality

Published on: April 29, 2013

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently upheld as constitutional two statutes requiring the registration of sex offenders even when applied to a person who was found not guilty by reason of insanity. See State of Louisiana v. Isaiah Overstreet, Jr., 12 - 1854 (La. 3/19/13). While an ultimate resolution of this issue would cause the Court to measure the asserted personal interests of the defendant against the public's interest in safety, the defendant's challenges were rejected because he failed to properly raise and brief the constitutional issues.

In Overstreet, it was factually established that the defendant attempted to force himself upon co-eds at two universities. After his arrest, he was diagnosed as schizophrenic and consistently denied any recollection of the crimes. Overstreet was found not guilty by reason of insanity and continued in state-run mental facilities for over a decade until filing a Motion to be Released in 2010. The motion was denied as a consequence of his refusal to participate in sex offender treatment.

When he inquired about the potential release to a group home, he was advised that he would have to register as a sex offender. He then moved to declare LSA-R.S. 15:541(7) and 15:542 (the sex offender registration statutes) unconstitutional.

The Trial Court struck down the statutes as an affront to the Louisiana Constitution, giving conflicting oral and written reasons in support of the ruling. The Trial Court later explained in a per curiam opinion that the primary concern is one of capacity and that it would be unjust to require registration from one lacking capacity to do so.

At the Supreme Court, the defense attorney argued that an application of the registration statutes to Overstreet would violate due process and equal protection because he had not been convicted as a sex offender. In response, the State argued that a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is not equivalent to an acquittal and that the registration statutes are not punitive but instead are designed to protect the public. The State contended that the defendant was a "sex offender" irrespective of the not guilty by reason of insanity defense.

The Louisiana Supreme Court did not address the merits of these positions. Instead, the Court held that the defendant had not sufficiently particularized the grounds for a constitutional challenge. The Court reasoned that legislation is presumed constitutional. As a result, if a party desires to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, that party must raise the unconstitutionality and specifically plead the basis of the alleged unconstitutionality.

The Overstreet Court reversed the Trial Court because it is the challenger's duty to sufficiently raise the constitutional objections. In so doing, the Court disregarded the Trial Court's sua sponte ruling ("on its own motion") that the sex offender registration statutes were unconstitutional because the Trial Court did not have the authority to raise these challenges.

While Overstreet did not resolve the ultimate issues of the constitutionality of the sex offender statutes in this setting, it did define the issues which would likely guide its decision should the issue ever be properly raised before the Court.

Posted by:

Disclaimer

Keogh Cox & Wilson, Ltd. provides this blog as a public service for general information only. The materials contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments or even express the opinion of all or even most of Keogh Cox attorneys. Such material does not constitute legal advice or form any attorney-client relationship. Keogh Cox and all contributing author(s) expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this Web site and Blog and expect that no reliance will be made upon the information provided.

Continue Reading

Explore legal perspectives on the issues shaping Louisiana's key industries and courtrooms.

Insight

Court Cannot Vouch for Voucher Funding

The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled 6-1 that the funding method for the private school tuition voucher program approved by the Legislature last year is unconstitutional under La. Const. art. VIII, Sect. 13(B). The decision leaves uncertain the status of the approximately 8,000 students who had been approved for vouchers for the 2013-2014 school year.In Louisiana Federation of Teachers et al. (No. 2013-CA-0120), the Court held that once funds are dedicated to the state's Minimum Foundation Program for public education, the Constitution prohibits the use of those funds for the tuition costs of nonpublic schools and nonpublic entities. The Court reasoned that it could not sanction the voucher program's funding method when the source of those funds specifically mandated that they be spent on public education. The Court rejected the argument that the voucher program violated the constitutional requirement that a legislative bill have only "one object."The voucher program was part of a 2012 school reform program that allowed the State to offer vouchers to a large number of Louisiana students and to expand the number of privately managed charter schools.The Jindal administration has pledged to continue the program. In response to the ruling, Jindal stated, "We're disappointed the funding mechanism was rejected, but we are committed to making sure this program continues and we will fund it through the budget."The passing of the voucher program legislation was a high-profile affair prominently covered by local and even national media. In this context, the Court felt it advisable to confirm the Supreme Court's role in approving or rejecting legislation. The first page of the opinion includes the following quote:

The determination of how to best provide for the education of children is not the role of the court in this matter. We defer that determination to those more learned in the fields of education and public policy. The court's role is to evaluate the law set forth in the constitution to determine whether the matters addressed by the legislature comply with the relevant constitutional provisions and "not to legislate social policy on the basis of our own personal inclinations." State v. Smith, 99-0606, 99-2094, 99-2015, 99-2019, p. 11 (La. 7/6/00), 766 So. 2d 501, 510. [Emphasis added]

One might reasonably expect that this will not be the last time the Louisiana Supreme Court will be asked to consider the voucher program.

Insight

Supreme Court Emphasizes “Error-Correcting” as Proper Role of Appellate Courts

In a 68 page decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Hayes Fund for the First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC, et al. v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain LLC, et al. forcefully explained the role of an appellate court. It is axiomatic that Louisiana appellate courts are courts of review. Louisiana law specifically sets the standard of review an appellate court must apply when reviewing a trial court’s factual decisions (manifest error) or its legal decisions (de novo). According to Hayes Fund, a failure to faithfully apply the “manifest error” standard of review where applicable causes an appellate court to function as a “choice-making court” when its proper role is to serve as an “errors-correcting court.”

The plaintiffs in Hayes Fund alleged that negligence by Kerr-McGee caused two wells to stop producing, leaving valuable assets out of reach. After a lengthy bench trial which spanned a ten-month period and involved over twenty-five days of live testimony, the trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to prove that the defendants caused the loss. Thereafter, the Third Circuit reversed the finding of the trial court as an abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the ruling in favor of defendants. The Court found that the primary issues in the trial court were factual issues concerning whether the experts were credible or factually correct, thus the “manifest error” standard of review should have been applied.

According to Hayes Fund, the manifest error standard of review is accomplished by undertaking a two-step process which asks: 1) whether there was any factual basis for the trial court’s conclusions; and, 2) whether the findings of the trial court were “clearly wrong.” Applying this test requires the appellate court to do more than “simply review the records for some evidence, which supports or controverts the Trial Court’s finding.” Instead, the appellate court must review the “entire record.” The Court cautioned that an appellate court is not to “re-weigh the evidence or to substitute its own factual findings just because it would have decided the case differently.”

Through its conclusion, the Hayes Fund Court provided clear guidance moving forward, stating:

Rarely should a District Court’s choice of expert(s) be found clearly wrong because it is so difficult to find a reasonable basis does not exist for the expert’s opinion relied upon by the District Court. It is destructive to the manifest error analysis for a reviewing Court to make its choice of the evidence rather than look for clear error in the reasonable basis found by the trier of fact. We have tortuously studied this scientific and voluminous record to demonstrate a proper manifest error review.

By its own terms, the Court intends the Hayes Fund decision in to provide “guidance” as to the “proper analysis for the reviewing Court(s).” While the principles discussed in Hayes Fund are not new or novel, the emphasis given by the Court was uniquely passionate and likely to quickly become a focus of future appellate argument and briefing.

Insight

Louisiana Supreme Court Confirms that Statutory Deadline to Oppose Summary Judgment Is Mandatory

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device a party can use to avoid a full-scale trial when there is no genuine issue of material fact. La. C.C.P. art. 966 is the statute that governs motions for summary judgment in Louisiana. The statute was amended in 2015 to establish some new procedural rules for filing summary judgment motions. Before the statue was amended, the deadline for opposing a motion for summary judgment was set in the District Court Rules, and courts frequently allowed oppositions to motions for summary judgment to be filed after the statutory delay.

In 2015, the Legislature amended the statute to state that “absent the consent of the parties and the court, an opposition shall be filed” within the new fifteen-day deadline established by the article. In Auricchio v. Harriston, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled the amendments to the statute removed the discretionary language that previously allowed a court to allow a party additional time to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court ruled the amendments to art. 966 made the opposition deadline mandatory, and late-filed oppositions should not be considered in connection with a ruling on a motion for summary judgment.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently revisited this issue in Mahe v. LCMC Health Holdings LLC. The Court considered whether a trial court may grant a continuance of a hearing on a motion for summary judgment when a party fails to file its opposition within the fifteen-day deadline set in La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2).

In Mahe, a party requested a continuance of the hearing after the fifteen-day deadline passed. While subsection 966(C)(2) provides that a continuance of the hearing is permitted “for good cause shown,” the Court held that the requested continuance could not serve to circumvent the mandatory deadline for filing an opposition, as described in the Auricchio case. Accordingly, the order granting the continuance was reversed, and the trial court was instructed to rule on the motion for summary judgment without consideration of the untimely filed opposition. In so holding, the Court reinforced the mandatory deadlines set in La. C.C.P. art. 966 and provided additional guidance on the procedural rules for filing and opposing motions for summary judgment.