Preview:

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 26 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 8th day of April, 2008, are as follows:

BY KNOLL, J.: 2006-K -2596 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. AMANDA GUTWEILER AKA AMANDA HYPES (Parish of Rapides) (First Degree Murder - Three Counts) For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The decision is affirmed insofar as it holds the indictment was properly quashed for the State's violation of grand jury secrecy by the release of a witness's grand jury transcript to its arson expert witness; the ruling prohibiting Dr. John DeHaan and Det. Bobby Sandoval from testifying in any future grand jury proceedings or prosecution of the defendant is reversed. This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. JOHNSON, J., concurs in part, dissents in part and will assign reasons. VICTORY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons. TRAYLOR, J., concurs in part and dissents in part for reasons assigned by Victory, J.

04/08/08

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 06-K-2596 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS AMANDA GUTWEILER AKA AMANDA HYPES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF RAPIDES

KNOLL, Justice The pre-trial status of this criminal case concerns sanctions imposed by the trial court against the State for breaching grand jury secrecy in violation of La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 434. The trial court quashed the indictment charging defendant with three counts of first-degree murder, and further ordered two principal State witnesses, its arson expert, Dr. John DeHann, and the lead investigator, Det. Bobby Sandoval, from testifying before any new grand jury convened to re-indict the defendant or from any subsequent trial.1 The court of appeal agreed with the trial court and affirmed. State v. Gutweiler, 06-561 (La. Ct. App. 3 Cir. 9/27/06), 940 So.2d 160. We granted this writ to further examine the significant questions raised concerning the appropriate sanctions for the State's breaches of grand jury secrecy. State v. Gutweiler, 06-2596 (La. 9/14/07), 963 So.2d 384. For the following reasons, we affirm the lower courts' quashal of the indictment against the defendant, but reverse the ruling prohibiting Dr. John DeHaan and Det. Bobby Sandoval from testifying in any future proceedings against the defendant. We find quashing the indictment was proper for the State's breach of grand jury secrecy, and remand the case to the district court for further
Additionally, the court found it was required to hold the assistant district attorney in constructive contempt, pursuant to La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 434, for violating the provisions of that article. The court ordered a show cause hearing to be set upon completion of appellate review.
1

proceedings. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Rapides Parish Grand Jury, on April 30, 2002, indicted Amanda Gutweiler, also known as Amanda Hypes, with three counts of first-degree murder in violation of La. Rev. Stat. 14:30. The State has announced its intent to seek the death penalty. The State maintains the defendant deliberately set fire to the family home on January 9, 2001, with the intent to kill her three young children. On May 3, 2002, defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to all charges. On February 7, 2006, defendant filed a "Motion to Compel Disclosure of Information Regarding Grand Jury Proceedings" (motion to compel), alleging the assistant district attorney confirmed he had released grand jury testimony to Dr. John DeHaan, the State's chief forensic arson expert witness. In the motion, defendant sought an order directing the State to enumerate, with particularity, the names of all persons to whom grand jury testimony or materials had been disclosed and precisely what testimony or materials had been disclosed. Subsequently, the district court granted the motion, ordering the State to provide the defendant with any and all grand jury information used by Dr. DeHaan. Defendant then filed a motion to quash. The defendant argued the indictment should be quashed for the State's violation of the laws pertaining to grand jury secrecy and further, the State should be prohibited, in any subsequent proceedings, from using any witnesses who have been allowed access to grand jury materials. At the hearing on the motion to quash, the State submitted into evidence a stipulation of facts. This stipulation provided that at the direction of an assistant district attorney, the State, on April 11, 2002, provided a transcript of Courtney Thomas's November

2

28, 2001 grand jury testimony to Dr. DeHaan.2

Dr. DeHann's receipt of this

transcript is reflected in his report dated July 3, 2002. The State provided the transcript of Ms. Thomas's grand jury testimony to Dr. DeHaan in order for him to have a complete understanding of the fuel load (furnishings) of the house, so that he could render an opinion to the grand jury as to the cause and origin of the fire and answer any of their questions in that regard. The assistant district attorney did not apply for or obtain a court order or authorization to release Ms. Thomas's grand jury testimony to Dr. DeHaan. Prior to receiving the grand jury transcript, Dr. De Haan also reviewed a February 5, 2001 statement given by Ms. Thomas to law enforcement concerning the furnishings of the house. Dr. DeHaan testified before the grand jury on April 25, 2002, approximately six months after the grand jury had been convened. The grand jury returned an indictment on April 30, 2002. The State further stipulated that in September or October of 2005, it provided the grand jury transcripts of Dalley, Iris and Shanna Maynard (defendant's stepfather, mother, and sister, respectively) to Detective Bobby Sandoval, the State's lead investigator on this case. These transcripts were provided in order to facilitate his investigation of suspicions that perjury had been committed. The transcripts of the Maynards' grand jury testimonies were provided to the defendant on August 12, 2005, to satisfy Brady3 obligations. The assistant district attorney did not apply for or obtain a court order or other judicial authorization permitting the release of the Maynards' grand jury testimonies to Det. Sandoval. While the motion to quash was pending the district court's ruling, the State filed a "Motion to Show Compelling Necessity for the Release of Grand Jury Information

Courtney Thomas babysat the defendant's three children at the Gutweiler home on January 8, 2001, the day before the fire. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)(suppression by the prosecution of exculpatory materials violates due process). 3
3

2

as Mandated by In re Grand Jury, 98-2277 (La. 4/13/99), 737 So.2d 1, with Incorporated Authorities." The district court denied the motion as untimely and moot, as the law requires the compelling necessity to be shown prior to the release of the grand jury information. The court found that the State was requesting permission to show a compelling necessity to release information that had been released four years earlier. On April 6, 2006, the court rendered its judgment, granting defendant's motion to quash, along with extensive written reasons therefor. The court ruled the State violated the laws of secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings by releasing a transcript of Ms. Thomas's grand jury testimony to Dr. DeHaan without a hearing and/or court authorization. It rejected the State's argument that Dr. DeHaan was a person having confidential access to information concerning grand jury proceedings and therefore the prosecutor could release the transcript to him after advising him of the duty to keep the testimony secret pursuant to La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 434 A. The court found Dr. DeHaan's status as an expert witness for the State did not qualify him as a person with a general right of access to confidential information concerning grand jury proceedings. The court interpreted article 434 to refer to persons who by law or job duty are directly associated with the conducting of grand jury proceedings, such as the district attorney and his secretarial staff. Although the State argued that as an expert, Dr. DeHaan was allowed to review the grand jury transcript in order to arrive at a conclusion, the court observed the State allowed Dr. DeHaan to review a wordfor-word colloquy of that particular grand jury proceeding without prior court approval. The court opined that had the Legislature wanted to make an exception to the grand jury secrecy law for experts, it would have made that exception very clear. It found the release of the grand jury transcript to Dr. DeHaan, especially when other options for the district attorney to proceed fairly and legally existed, violated
4

Louisiana Constitution Article V,

Download 2006-K-2596 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. AMANDA GUTWEILER AKA AMANDA HYPES.pdf

Louisiana Law