Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

367 So. 2d 4

State v. Washington

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided December 15, 1978

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1978-12-15

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"When the penalty imposed by the statute is a mandatory one the trial judge must inform the jury of the penalty on request of the defendant, and must permit the defense to argue the penalty to the jury."”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including State v. Johnson, State v. Adams

Relies on 298 So. 2d 798 - State v. Blackwell · 337 So. 2d 1107 - State v. Prater · 345 So. 2d 18 - State v. Milby

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 450 So. 2d 621 - State v. Jackson (1984), 405 So. 2d 1080 - State v. Parish (1981)

30 state decisions

16019781980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DIXON, Justice.

¶1Defendant Alvin “Coffee” Washington was charged with distribution of heroin in violation of R.S. 40:966(A). After trial by jury beginning January 11, 1978, defendant was found guilty as charged. On March 13, 1978 the trial court sentenced him to the mandatory life term under the statute. On appeal, defendant argues sixteen of the twenty-one assignments of error filed in the trial court. Assignments 15 and 17 present reversible error.

¶2Assignments of Error Nos. 15 and 17

¶3Defense argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the mandatory penalty for distribution of heroin was life imprisonment; further, defense counsel complains that he was forbidden under pain of contempt to inform the jury of the penalty in argument.

¶4State v. Blackwell, 298 So.2d 798 (La.1974), held that a jury need not be told of the penalty in an armed robbery case, noting, however, that in cases in which the penalty was mandatory life, the jury was to be informed of the sentence. In State v. Prater, 337 So.2d 1107 (La.1976), a majority of this court indicated that Blackwell would not apply “when the statutory offense requires a mandatory legislative penalty, with no judicial discretion as to its imposition following verdict.” 337 So.2d 1107, 1110. State v. Milby, 345 So.2d 18 (La.1977), noted the exception to the Blackwellrule, but did not reverse because the case was tried before Prater.

¶5Trial in this case began January 11, 1978. The issue is squarely presented. The trial judge was in error.

¶6When the penalty imposed by the statute is a mandatory one the trial judge must inform the jury of the penalty on request of the defendant, and must permit the defense to argue the penalty to the jury, for the reasons expressed in the dissents to State v. Blackwell, supra, and in *5the cases of State v. Prater, supra and State v. Milby, supra.

¶7The conviction and sentence are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

TATE, J., assigns concurring reasons.SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., dissent.SANDERS, C. J., dissents and assigns reasons.TATE, Justice

¶8(concurring).

¶9The special charge was not refused as incorrect. Both the trial court and the attorneys thought it correctly expressed the law.

¶10The trial court denied the special charge solely because of its mistaken view that no charge or argument is permitted about sentences, even if the sentence is mandatory. The majority opinion correctly states the law.

/367/so2d/4 · .json · Public domain