equal protection clause in Louisiana

2002See Deloch v. Whitley, 96-1901 (La.11/22/96), 684 So.2d 349 ("Counsel must assert the equal protection claim in a pre-trial motion to quash or waive any complaint in that regard"); State v. Dillard, 320 So.2d 116, 120 (La. 1975) (failure to file motion to quash before trial waives any challenge to the grand jury); State v. White, 193 La. 775, 786 , 192 So. 345, 348 (1938) (same); cf. Lindsey v. Whitley, 94-1559 (La.3/17/95), 651 So.2d 264 (court denies writs when even capital convict failed to raise before trial issue of discrimination in grand jury foreman selection process).

2002See Deloch v. Whitley, 96-1901 (La.11/22/96), 684 So.2d 349 ("Counsel must assert the equal protection claim in a pre-trial motion to quash or waive any complaint in that regard"); State v. Dillard, 320 So.2d 116, 120 (La. 1975) (failure to file motion to quash before trial waives any challenge to the grand jury); State v. White, 193 La. 775, 786 , 192 So. 345, 348 (1938) (same); cf. Lindsey v. Whitley, 94-1559 (La.3/17/95), 651 So.2d 264 (court denies writs when even capital convict failed to raise before trial issue of discrimination in grand jury foreman selection process).

2005Francis, 425 U.S., at 539-542 , 96 S.Ct. at 1710-11 ; State v. Lee, 340 So.2d 180, 182 (La.1976) (motion to quash is the appropriate vehicle for challenging the validity of a grand jury indictment, composition, or selection process); State v. Dillard, 320 So.2d 116, 120 (La.1975) (failure to file a motion to quash before trial waives any challenge to the grand jury); State v. White, 193 La. 775 , 192 So. 345, 348 (1939) (same); cf., Johnson v. Puckett, 929 F.2d 1067, 1069 (5th Cir.1991) (“At his trial, Johnson, a black male, moved to quash the indictment because of racial discrimination in the

2002See Deloch v. Whitley, 96-1901 (La.11/22/96), 684 So.2d 349 ("Counsel must assert the equal protection claim in a pre-trial motion to quash or waive any complaint in that regard"); State v. Dillard, 320 So.2d 116, 120 (La. 1975) (failure to file motion to quash before trial waives any challenge to the grand jury); State v. White, 193 La. 775, 786 , 192 So. 345, 348 (1938) (same); cf. Lindsey v. Whitley, 94-1559 (La.3/17/95), 651 So.2d 264 (court denies writs when even capital convict failed to raise before trial issue of discrimination in grand jury foreman selection process).

2005Francis, 425 U.S. at 539-542 , 96 S.Ct. at 1710-11 ; State v. Lee, 340 So.2d 180, 182 (La. 1976) (motion to quash is the appropriate vehicle for challenging the validity of a grand jury indictment, composition, or selection process); State v. Dillard, 320 So.2d 116, 120 (La. 1975) (failure to file a motion to quash before trial waives any challenge to the grand jury); State v. White, 193 La. 775 , 192 So. 345, 348 (1939) (same); cf., Johnson v. Puckett, 929 F.2d 1067, 1069 (5th Cir.1991) ("At his trial, Johnson, a black male, moved to quash the indictment because of racial discrimination in th

2005Francis, 425 U.S., at 539-542 , 96 S.Ct. at 1710-11 ; State v. Lee, 340 So.2d 180, 182 (La.1976) (motion to quash is the appropriate vehicle for challenging the validity of a grand jury indictment, composition, or selection process); State v. Dillard, 320 So.2d 116, 120 (La.1975) (failure to file a motion to quash before trial waives any challenge to the grand jury); State v. White, 193 La. 775 , 192 So. 345, 348 (1939) (same); cf., Johnson v. Puckett, 929 F.2d 1067, 1069 (5th Cir.1991) (“At his trial, Johnson, a black male, moved to quash the indictment because of racial discrimination in the

2005Francis, 425 U.S., at 539-542 , 96 S.Ct. at 1710-11 ; State v. Lee, 340 So.2d 180, 182 (La.1976) (motion to quash is the appropriate vehicle for challenging the validity of a grand jury indictment, composition, or selection process); State v. Dillard, 320 So.2d 116, 120 (La.1975) (failure to file a motion to quash before trial waives any challenge to the grand jury); State v. White, 193 La. 775 , 192 So. 345, 348 (1939) (same); cf., Johnson v. Puckett, 929 F.2d 1067, 1069 (5th Cir.1991) (“At his trial, Johnson, a black male, moved to quash the indictment because of racial discrimination in the

2003The problem is that if discrimination tainted the foreperson selection, then the discrimination arguably also tainted the selection of the entire grand jury. [4] In Mosley , the Texas court extended Hobby to an equal protection claim, albeit noting the federal jurisprudence to the contrary. [1] The trial court applied the three-prong test in Johnson v. Puckett, 929 F.2d 1067 (5th Cir.1991), discussed infra, to find that the defendants had established a prima facie case of discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreperson.

2005Francis, 425 U.S. at 539-542 , 96 S.Ct. at 1710-11 ; State v. Lee, 340 So.2d 180, 182 (La. 1976) (motion to quash is the appropriate vehicle for challenging the validity of a grand jury indictment, composition, or selection process); State v. Dillard, 320 So.2d 116, 120 (La. 1975) (failure to file a motion to quash before trial waives any challenge to the grand jury); State v. White, 193 La. 775 , 192 So. 345, 348 (1939) (same); cf., Johnson v. Puckett, 929 F.2d 1067, 1069 (5th Cir.1991) ("At his trial, Johnson, a black male, moved to quash the indictment because of racial discrimination in th

2005Francis, 425 U.S., at 539-542 , 96 S.Ct. at 1710-11 ; State v. Lee, 340 So.2d 180, 182 (La.1976) (motion to quash is the appropriate vehicle for challenging the validity of a grand jury indictment, composition, or selection process); State v. Dillard, 320 So.2d 116, 120 (La.1975) (failure to file a motion to quash before trial waives any challenge to the grand jury); State v. White, 193 La. 775 , 192 So. 345, 348 (1939) (same); cf., Johnson v. Puckett, 929 F.2d 1067, 1069 (5th Cir.1991) (“At his trial, Johnson, a black male, moved to quash the indictment because of racial discrimination in the

2013In Sibley v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 477 So.2d 1094 (La.1985), the Supreme Court set forth the criteria to determine whether an equal protection violation has occurred: Article I, Section 3 commands the courts to decline enforcement of a legislative classification of individuals in three different situations: (1) When the law classifies individuals by race or religious beliefs, it shall be repudiated completely; (2) When the statute classifies persons on the basis of birth, age, sex, culture, physical condition, or political ideas or affiliations, its enforcement sh

2008When the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 was drafted, its doctrine of equal protection *788 was written to go "beyond the decisional law construing the Fourteenth Amendment." [9] Sibley v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Louisiana State Univ., 477 So.2d 1094, 1108 (La.1985); Louisiana Associated Gen.

2014State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989).

2012State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815, 819 (La.1989); United States v. Clemons, 843 F.2d 741 (3rd Cir.1988) (striking a single black juror could constitute a prima facie case even when blacks ultimately sit on the panel and even when valid reasons exist for striking other blacks); United States v. David, 803 F.2d 1567, 1571 (11th Cir.1986) (“the striking of one black juror for a racial reason violates the Equal Protection Clause”); Fleming v. Kemp, 794 F.2d 1478, 1483 (11th Cir.1986) (“nothing in Batson compels the ... conclusion that constitutional guarantees are never abridged if all black jurors

2019In Batson v. Kentucky , the United States Supreme Court held that an equal protection violation occurs when a party uses a peremptory challenge to exclude a prospective juror on the basis of race. 476 U.S. 79 , 94-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

2019In Batson v. Kentucky , the United States Supreme Court held that an equal protection violation occurs when a party uses a peremptory challenge to exclude a prospective juror on the basis of race. 476 U.S. 79 , 94-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

2024See Deloch v. Whitley, 96-1901, p. 1 (La.11/22/96), 684 So. 2d 349 (“Counsel must assert the equal protection claim in a pre-trial motion to quash or waive any complaint in that regard”)). 57 has failed to show he was prejudiced by this failure.

2005In State v. Bradford, 2002-1452, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/23/04), 846 So.2d 880, 887 , writ denied, 2003-1410 (La.11/26/03), 860 So.2d 1133 , this Court stated: In Deloch v. Whitley, 96-1901 (La.11/22/96), 684 So.2d 349 , the Louisiana Supreme Court made clear that an equal protection claim based upon discriminatory selection of the grand jury foreman is barred if the defendant fails to file a pretrial motion to quash saying: All equal protection claims arising out of the selection or composition of grand juries in Louisiana remain subject to this state’s procedural requirements.

1989The plurality held that "the statute should be upheld [against an equal protection challenge] unless plaintiff shows that it does not further an appropriate state interest. " 496 So.2d at 311 (emphasis added).

1989Because "plaintiff offered no evidence to meet this burden," id., the plurality rejected the equal protection challenge.

1999See Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485-86 , 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1161-62 , 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970) (failure of state to make perfect classifications not equal protection violation). [Page 1017] When social or economic legislation is at issue, the Equal Protection Clause allows the States wide latitude.

1999See Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485-86 , 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1161-62 , 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970) (failure of state to make perfect classifications not equal protection violation). [Page 1017] When social or economic legislation is at issue, the Equal Protection Clause allows the States wide latitude.

1987This Court treated the equal protection analysis in a workers' compensation case in Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La. 1981).

1986As we held in Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La.1981): [I]n the area of economics and social welfare, a legislature does not violate the equal protection clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect.

2013“In Batson [v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986)], the Supreme Court held that an equal protection violation occurs if a party exercises a peremptory challenge to exclude a prospective juror on the basis of a person’s race.” State v. Anderson, 06-2987, p. 41 (La.9/9/08), 996 So.2d 973, 1004 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1906 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1057 (2009) (footnote omitted); see also State v. Sarpy, 10-700 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/10) , 52 So.3d 1032 , writ denied, 11-46 (La.6/3/11), 63 So.3d 1006 .

2013“In Batson [v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986)], the Supreme Court held that an equal protection violation occurs if a party exercises a peremptory challenge to exclude a prospective juror on the basis of a person’s race.” State v. Anderson, 06-2987, p. 41 (La.9/9/08), 996 So.2d 973, 1004 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1906 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1057 (2009) (footnote omitted); see also State v. Sarpy, 10-700 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/10) , 52 So.3d 1032 , writ denied, 11-46 (La.6/3/11), 63 So.3d 1006 .

2005In Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 494-495 , 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1280 , 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977), the United States Supreme Court enunciated the requirements for an equal protection violation.

2005In Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 494-495 , 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1280 , 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977), the United States Supreme Court enunciated the requirements for an equal protection violation.

2012R.S. 13:5105(D) ], as set forth by this court in Beauclaire v. Greenhouse, 05-0765 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 501 , the district court concluded it was required to strike defendants’ jury trial request to prevent what it perceived as an equal protection violation.

2011R.S. 13:5107(D), as set forth by this court in Beauclaire v. Greenhouse, 05-0765 (La.2/22/06), 922 So.2d 501 , the district court concluded it was required to strike defendants’ jury trial request to prevent what it perceived as an equal protection violation.

2005State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 17, (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501, 514 ; State v. Baxley, 94-2982, p. 9 (La.5/22/95), 656 So.2d 973, 979 ; see also State v. Neal, 500 *1238 So.2d 374 (La.1987) (Punishment of one type of conduct more severely than another similar type of conduct is not, of itself, an equal protection violation.).

2002Cf. State v. Fleury, 01-0871 (La.10/16/01), 799 So.2d 468 (shoplifting statute providing for more severe penalties than the general theft statute not violative of equal protection given widespread problem of retail theft); State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 17 (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501, 514 (punishing solicitation of crimes against nature, i.e., anal or oral sex, more harshly than solicitation of prostitution does not violate the equal protection clause); State v. Carter, 99-0779, pp. 16-17 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/17/00) , 773 So.2d 268, 280 (defendant, who was convicted of possession of heroin, failed t

1989Id. at 227 , 85 S.Ct. at 839 .

1989Id. at 227 , 85 S.Ct. at 839 .

2014Rudolph v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co., 472 So.2d 901, 904 (La.1985).

2007In Rudolph v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co. , 472 So. 2d 901 (La. 1985), the Supreme Court stated that the function of the equal protection clause is to measure the validity of classifications created by state laws.