Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

550 So. 2d 1289

State v. Davis

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided September 28, 1989

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1989-09-28

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Mitchell v. Mitchell · State v. Davis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-09-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2011

22 state decisions

1901989199020002010decided

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 →

¶1ON REMAND FROM SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

¶2On August 13, 1985, after a jury trial, Eugene Davis was found guilty of manslaughter in violation of LSA R.S. 14:31(2). On appeal, the defendant argued that because the trial court gave an incorrect jury charge concerning circumstantial evidence, the wrong legal standard was used to test the sufficiency of the evidence at his trial. This court found merit in this assignment of error and reversed the trial court’s decision on November 9, 1988, remanding the case for a new trial. 535 So.2d 34.

¶3The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted certiorari. The case was remanded to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal on April 7, 1989, for reconsideration in light of the entire jury charge given by the trial court. 541 So.2d 831. The Supreme Court stated that this court, after reviewing the entire jury charge, should consider whether the facts necessarily found by the jury in its verdict satisfy the due process standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1977).

¶4On April 14, 1989, this court ordered the court reporter to prepare and transcribe the jury charges from the trial on this matter. The reporter responded to this court’s request stating that the notes of this trial, being eligible for destruction, were discarded pursuant to Attorney General’s Opinion No. 83-174. Because the jury charge transcripts are not available, we are precluded from complying with the order of the Supreme Court.

¶5Accordingly, for the reasons assigned therein, we reaffirm our original opinion. The decision of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

¶6REVERSED AND REMANDED.

/550/so2d/1289 · .json · Public domain