State v. Nazar
675 So. 2d 780, 1996 WL 275285 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court lacks statutory authority to unilaterally change an invalid verdict for a non-existent crime, such as 'attempted simple battery,' into a verdict for a recognized, and potentially 'greater,' offense, such as 'simple battery,' even if the initial invalid verdict does not constitute an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes under state law.
Facts:
- William P. Nazar was originally charged with one count of aggravated battery.
- The charge against William P. Nazar was later amended to simple battery.
- The trial court, sitting without a jury, found William P. Nazar guilty of 'attempted simple battery.'
- Under Louisiana law, 'attempted simple battery' is not a recognized crime.
- After the initial verdict, the trial court vacated its original verdict and subsequently found William P. Nazar guilty of 'simple battery.'
Procedural Posture:
- William P. Nazar was originally charged with aggravated battery in the trial court (a court of first instance).
- The charge against William P. Nazar was amended to simple battery.
- The trial court, sitting without a jury, found William P. Nazar guilty of 'attempted simple battery.'
- William P. Nazar filed a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal.
- The State of Louisiana made an oral motion to clarify the verdict.
- The trial court vacated its original verdict and subsequently found William P. Nazar guilty of simple battery.
- The trial court sentenced William P. Nazar to three months in parish prison, suspended, with three months inactive probation, plus court costs and a fee.
- William P. Nazar (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Criminal District Court Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Criminal District Court Appellate Division reversed William P. Nazar's conviction and acquitted him of the charge.
- The State of Louisiana (relator) filed an application for review with the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit (this court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court have the authority to vacate its original invalid verdict of 'attempted simple battery' (a non-crime) and unilaterally enter a verdict of 'simple battery' (a recognized crime), or does doing so constitute a violation of statutory authority?
Opinions:
Majority - Barry, J.
No, a trial court does not have the authority to vacate its original invalid verdict of 'attempted simple battery' and unilaterally enter a verdict of 'simple battery.' The court found that Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 813 only permits a court to refuse to receive an incorrect or non-responsive verdict and remand the jury with instructions; it does not grant the trial court authority to change its own prior verdict. There is no other article or statute in the Code of Criminal Procedure that provides such authority. The original verdict of 'attempted simple battery' was invalid because it is not a responsive verdict to simple battery and is not a recognized crime in Louisiana. While acknowledging the persuasive reasoning of the federal district court in Mayeux v. Belt, which suggested an invalid verdict could operate as an acquittal, this court is bound by the Louisiana Supreme Court's ruling in State v. Mayeux. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that a verdict of guilty for a non-crime does not serve as either an acquittal or a conviction for double jeopardy purposes, thus permitting a retrial. Therefore, the trial court erred by unilaterally changing its verdict to simple battery. The conviction and sentence are reversed, but the defendant is not acquitted, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the principle that a verdict for a non-crime is neither an acquittal nor a conviction.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent limitations on a trial court's power to correct its own verdicts, emphasizing that statutory authority must explicitly grant such power. It highlights the ongoing tension between state and federal interpretations of double jeopardy, particularly concerning invalid verdicts, by affirming the binding nature of state supreme court precedent even in the face of contradictory federal court rulings. The decision reinforces the importance of responsive verdicts and proper judicial procedure in criminal cases, ensuring that errors in conviction for non-existent crimes lead to a remand for correct legal proceedings rather than a unilateral judicial correction or outright acquittal.
