STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2019 KA 0361

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ERIC NEWMAN

Judgment Rendered: ' SEP 2 7 2019

On Appeal from the Twenty -First Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana Docket No. 1603117

Honorable Robert H. Morrison, Judge Presiding

Scott Perrilloux Counsel for Appellee District Attorney State of Louisiana Patricia Parker Amos Assistant District Attorney Amite, Louisiana

Gwendolyn K. Brown Counsel for Defendant/ Appellant Louisiana Appellate Project Eric Newman Baton Rouge, Louisiana

eWMEWWWa

BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.

McCLENDON, J.

Defendant, Eric J. Newman, was charged by grand jury indictment with first degree murder, a violation of LSA- R. S. 14: 30. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty.' After a trial by jury, he was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced

defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Defendant now appeals, assigning error to the constitutionality of the verdict. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On November 25, 2016, at about 12: 45 a. m., Corporal Bobby Carter of the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's Office was travelling northbound on South Morrison

Boulevard in Hammond in his marked vehicle when a driver in another vehicle flagged

him down and told him that a subject was lying in the middle of the road, nearby on Rue Cannes. As Corporal Carter approached 900 Rue Cannes, he observed a male

subject, later identified as Stephen Vance, lying in the street surrounded by shattered glass and blood. 2 At trial, defendant testified and admitted to shooting the victim, claiming that the victim pulled out a knife during a drug transaction that took place in the victim' s vehicle. Other trial witnesses also implicated defendant as the shooter.3

ALLEGED NON -UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT

In the sole assignment of error, defendant contends that the jury verdict was presumptively less than unanimous, noting that the polling slips were not in the record and that the trial court characterized the verdict as " valid," as opposed to unanimous.

He argues that because his conviction is not yet final, the amended versions of LSA -

Const. art. I, § 17( A) and LSA- C. Cr. P. art. 782A should be applied to this case.

Defendant further submits that LSA -Const. art. I, § 17( A) and LSA- C. Cr. P. art. 782

violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution. He contends

Vance was transported to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

contemporaneous objection to the verdict was not lodged below, but he argues that a non -unanimous verdict constitutes patent error that affects his substantial rights.

In addition to the constitutional challenge not being properly before this court,4 the sealed jury verdict, which was supplemented in the record, shows the verdict in this case was unanimous. Accordingly, defendant's assignment of error has no merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.