Preview:

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 42

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 29th day of June, 2007 , are as follows:

PER CURIAM :

2006-K -1984

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DEXTER LEON DAVIS (Parish of East Carroll) (Resisting an Officer) Accordingly, we recall our order of March 30, 2007, as improvidently granted, and we deny defendant's writ application. CALOGERO, C.J., dissents from recall of the writ and assigns reasons. WEIMER, J., dissents. I would not recall the writ in this matter.

06/29/07 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2006-K-1984

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DEXTER LEON DAVIS

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST CARROLL

PER CURIAM We granted defendant's application for a writ of certiorari in this case on March 30, 2007. State v. Davis, 06-1984 (La. 3/30/07), 953 So.2d 59. After hearing oral arguments on May 23, 2007, and reviewing the record of the matter, we conclude the judgment below does not require the exercise of this court's supervisory authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of March 30, 2007, as improvidently granted, and we deny defendant's writ application.

1

06/29/07
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2006-K-1984 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DEXTER LEON DAVIS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST CARROLL CALOGERO, Chief Justice, dissents from recall of the writ and assigns reasons. I dissent from the action of the court in recalling the writ as improvidently granted. The defendant's pro se writ application was granted, the case briefed, and oral arguments made by the defendant pro se and the district attorney. At this juncture, the case should be decided on the merits. Furthermore, I believe the defendant is entitled to the relief he seeks. The defendant contends in this court that he did not engage in any behavior that constituted resisting arrest and that he simply acted within his constitutional right to remain silent on behalf of himself and his son in refusing to make a statement or sign any police paperwork. While the evidence presented at trial revealed that the defendant assumed an adversarial relationship with the deputy and verbally opposed the deputy's efforts to cooperate with the "juvenile arrest" of his son, the defendant, in my view, persuasively argues that his verbal refusals alone, while perhaps illadvised, did not constitute the criminal offense of resisting arrest. "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court in Louisiana is controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 433 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) . . . . [T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in

1

the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La. 1984). The trial judge, acting as the trier of fact in this case, indicated that he based his decision on Section A of La. R.S. 14:108. This section provides as follows:

Download 2006-K-1984 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DEXTER LEON DAVIS.pdf

Louisiana Law