The legislative instrument and the following digest, which constitutes no part of the
legislative instrument, were prepared by Alden A. Clement, Jr..
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REP ORT DIGEST
SB 16 2017 Regular Session Claitor
Keyword and summary of the bill as proposed by the Conference Committee
JUVENILE JUSTICE. Provides relative to certain juveniles sentenced to life without parole.
(8/1/17)
Report adopts House amendments to:
1. Delete the repeal of the present law provision relative to the judicial determination of
whether a juvenile offender's sentence for first or second degree murder is to be imposed
with or without parole eligibility.
2. Delete the repeal of the present law provision relative to the parole eligibility of juvenile
offenders sentenced to life imprisonment for first or second degree murder.
3. Delete the provision that proposed law is effective upon signature of the governor or lapse
of time for gubernatorial action.
4. Add provisions relative to parole eligibility for juvenile offenders convicted of first degree
murder whose indictment is on or after 8/1/17.
5. Add provisions relative to parole eligibility for juvenile offenders convicted of second degree
murder whose indictment is on or after 8/1/17.
6. Add provisions relative to parole eligibility for juvenile offenders convicted of first or second
degree murder whose indictment was prior to 8/1/17.
7. Provide relative to the procedure for the judicial determination of whether a juvenile
offender's life sentence is to be imposed with or without parole eligibility.
8. Provide that for juvenile offenders convicted of second degree murder whose indictment is
on or after 8/1/17 a judicial determination of the offender's parole eligibility is not required.
9. Provide that, with regard to the hearing for the judicial determination of the offender's parole
eligibility, expert testimony is only necessary as determined by the court, and for the sole
purpose of the hearing to determine whether the sentence is to be imposed with or without
parole eligibility. 10.Provide that the court is required to state for the record the considerations taken into account
and the factual basis for its determination.
11.Change notice of intent by district attorney to seek life without parole from mandatory to
discretionary.
Report rejects House amendments which would have:
1. Required offender to serve 30 years rather than 25 years before parole eligibility.
Report amends the bill to:
1. Provide that, with regard to the hearing to judicially determine the juvenile offender's parole
eligibility, the admissibility of expert witness testimony is to be governed by present law
(Code of Evidence). Digest of the bill as proposed by the Conference Committee
Present law crimes of first degree rape (formerly aggravated rape) and aggravated kidnapping both
carry a sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of parole.
In Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the 8th Amendment's
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to
life in prison without a reasonable opportunity for parole for a non-homicide crime.
Present law provides parole eligibility for juvenile offenders serving a life sentence for aggravated
rape or aggravated kidnapping when certain conditions are met, including the requirement that the
person serve 30 years of the sentence imposed.
Proposed law decreases the amount of time the juvenile offender is required to serve prior to
becoming parole eligible from 30 years of the sentence imposed to 25 years of the sentence imposed.
Proposed law otherwise retains present law.
Present law crimes of first degree murder and second degree murder carry a sentence of life
imprisonment without benefit of parole.
In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), the Supreme Court held that mandatory life
imprisonment without parole for any offender under the age of 18 violates the 8th Amendment's
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Present law provides that a juvenile serving a sentence of life imprisonment for a conviction of first
or second degree murder is eligible for parole consideration if a judicial determination has been
made that the person is entitled to parole eligibility pursuant to present law and certain conditions
are met, including the requirement that the person serve 35 years of the sentence imposed. Present
law further provides that in any case where an offender is to be sentenced to life imprisonment for
a conviction of first or second degree murder and the offender was under the age of 18 years at the
time of the commission of the offense, a hearing must be conducted prior to sentencing to determine
whether the sentence is to be imposed with or without parole eligibility. These provisions of present
law relative to juvenile sentences of life imprisonment for homicide offenses were applied only to
persons whose conviction became final after the decision in Miller.
In Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ____ (2016), the Supreme Court held Miller applies
retroactively to persons whose conviction became final prior to the Miller decision rendered on
6/25/12.
Proposed law provides:
(1) If an offender is indicted on or after Aug. 1, 2017, for the crime of first degree murder where
the offender was under the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offense, then
the district attorney may file a notice of intent to seek a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole within 180 days after the indictment. If the district attorney
timely files the notice of intent, a hearing must be conducted to determine whether the
sentence is to be imposed with or without parole eligibility. If the court determines that the
sentence is to be imposed without parole eligibility, then the defendant is not eligible for
parole. If the court determines that the offender is eligible for parole or if the district attorney
fails to timely file the notice of intent, then the offender will be eligible for parole pursuant
to proposed law, which requires certain conditions to be met, including the condition that the
offender is required to serve 25 years of the sentence imposed.
(2)If an offender is indicted on or after 8/1/17 for the crime of second degree murder where the
offender was under the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offense, then the
offender is eligible for parole pursuant to present law, which requires certain conditions to
be met, including the condition that the offender be required to serve 25 years of the sentence
imposed.
(3) If an offender was indicted prior to 8/1/17 for the crime of first or second degree murder
where the offender was under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the offense and
a hearing was not held prior to 8/1/17 to determine whether the offender's sentence should
be imposed with or without parole eligibility, then the district attorney may file a notice of
intent to seek a sentence a life imprisonment without the possibility of parole within 90 days
of Aug. 1, 2017. If the district attorney timely files the notice of intent, a hearing is to be
conducted to determine whether the sentence is to be imposed with or without parole
eligibility. If the court determines that the sentence is to be imposed without parole
eligibility, then the offender is not eligible for parole. If the court determines that the
sentence is to be imposed with parole eligibility or if the district attorney fails to timely file
the notice of intent, then the offender will be eligible for parole pursuant to proposed law,
which requires certain conditions to be met, including the condition that the offender serve
25 years of the sentence imposed.
(4) If an offender was indicted prior to 8/1/17 for the crime of first or second degree murder
where the offender was under the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the
offense and a hearing was held to determine whether the offender's sentence should be
imposed with or without parole eligibility, then the following apply:
(a)If the court determined that the offender's sentence was to be imposed with parole
eligibility, then the offender is eligible for parole pursuant to present law.
(b)If the court determined that the offender's sentence was to be imposed without parole
eligibility, then the offender is not be eligible for parole.
Proposed law provides that, with regard to the hearing for the judicial determination as to the
offender's parole eligibility:
(1) The admissibility of expert witness testimony in these matters is to be governed by present
law (Code of Evidence). (2) The sole purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the sentence will be imposed with
or without parole eligibility.
(3) The court must state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis
for its determination.
Effective August 1, 2017.
(Amends R.S. 15:574.4(D)(1)(a) and (2) and (E)(1)(intro. para.) and (a) and C.Cr.P. Art.
878.1; adds R.S. 15:574.4(F) and (G))