Preview:

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 29

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinion handed down on the 27th day of April, 2007 , is as follows:

BY KIMBALL, J. :

2006-KK-2383

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. GEORGE KING (Parish of Lasalle) (Malfeasance in Office) For all of the above reasons, we find defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the district attorney should be recused pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 680(1). Consequently, we find the trial court erred in denying the motion to recuse the district attorney. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeal's order granting defendant's motion to recuse the district attorney and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings . AFFIRMED AND REMANDED . VICTORY, J., dissents and assigns reasons. TRAYLOR, J., dissents. KNOLL, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Victory, J. WEIMER, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.

04/27/2007

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2006-KK-2383

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. GEORGE KING

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF LASALLE

KIMBALL, Justice The sole issue presented by this case is whether defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the district attorney has a personal interest in the cause which is in conflict with the fair and impartial administration of justice such that he should be recused pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 680(1). Because we find that the district attorney's personal animosity toward defendant stemming from the district attorney's belief that defendant started or spread a salacious rumor about him and a member of his family was a factor in making certain prosecutorial decisions, we believe his ability to fairly and impartially conduct defendant's trial was called into question. Consequently, we find the district attorney should be recused in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 680(1). Facts and Procedural History On October 21, 2003, a LaSalle Parish Grand Jury returned a true bill of

1

indictment charging defendant, George King, the Chief of Police for the town of Jena, Louisiana, with malfeasance in office in violation of La. R.S. 14:134(1).1 The charges stem from an incident that occurred on October 6, 2003, in which James Robbins, the Mayor of Jena, struck Gary Compton, a member of the Town Council of Jena, twice in the face with a closed fist after a heated verbal exchange. When the incident occurred, the mayor was accompanied by defendant, who allegedly witnessed and participated in the event, yet failed to take any action to prevent its escalation into a simple battery, and failed to make an arrest pursuant to an investigation. Defendant filed various pre-trial motions that are not relevant here. Eventually, trial was set for August 29, 2005. On August 23, 2005, defendant filed a motion to recuse the district attorney alleging the prosecutor possessed strong personal feelings of animosity towards him that would conflict with the fair and impartial administration of justice. Specifically, defendant alleged the district attorney believed that defendant had either started or spread salacious rumors concerning the personal lives of the district attorney and a member of his family. Defendant further alleged the district attorney's belief that he had started or spread the rumors had driven the district attorney to proceed with his prosecution instead of perhaps dismissing it as was earlier discussed by defendant's attorney and the district attorney.
1

The bill of indictment was later amended to include a violation of La. R.S. 14:134(2) as well as La. R.S. 14:134(1). La. R.S. 14:134(1) and (2) provide: Malfeasance in office is committed when any public officer or public employee shall: (1) Intentionally refuse or fail to perform any duty lawfully required of him, as such officer or employee; (2) Intentionally perform any such duty in an unlawful manner[.]
2

On July 11, 2006, a contradictory hearing was conducted on defendant's motion to recuse the district attorney. The trial court denied the motion. On defendant's application, the court of appeal granted a writ and made it peremptory, finding the trial court erred in denying the motion to recuse the district attorney. State v. King, 06-0981 (La. App. 3 Cir. 8/29/06). This court granted certiorari upon the State's request. State v. King, 06-2383 (La. 12/15/06), 944 So.2d 1268. Discussion Generally, the district attorney has charge of every criminal prosecution by the state in his district. La. Const. art. V,

Download 2006-KK-2383 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. GEORGE KING.pdf

Louisiana Law