Reasons for ruling in Norris Greenhouse Jr. hearing

7/24/2019 Reasons for ruling in Norris Greenhouse Jr. hearing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reasons-for-ruling-in-norris-greenhouse-jr-hearing 1/4

CRIMINAL DOCKET

N O .

9999-CR-000021-B

STATE

O F

LOUSIANA

12™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

VERSUS PARISH

O F

AVOYELLES

NORRJS GREENHOUSE

STATE O F LOUISIANA

A N D

CHERYL GREENHOUSE A N D

NORRIS GREENHOUSE

12™

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

VERSUS

PARISH O F AVOYELLES

DOUG ANDERSON, IN HIS CAPACITY

A S SHERIFF O F AVOY ELL ES PARISH STATE O F LOUISIANA

RE SONS OR RULING

C)h N o v e F h h p r 3 0 1 5 Greenhouse, Jr . was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by

this Court on charges o f Second Degree Murder and Attempted Second Degree Murder. Learning

that this matter would be assigned to Division A of the this Court, consultation was had with Judge

Spruill and Bond was set a t 1,000,000.00 plus certain restrictions to apply in the event that bond

w a s

posted. Judge Spruill

h a s

since entered

an

Order

or

Recusal.

O n

November

16 , 2015,

Cheryl Greenhouse

a n d

Norris Greenhouse, parents

o f

Norris

Greenhouse,

Jr.

filed

a

Petition

o f

Writ

o f

Mand amus citing

th e

Sheriff

o f

Avoyelles Parish, Doug

Anderson,

to

show cause

why he

should

not be

compelled

to

accept

th e

posting

o f a

property bond

tendered by Cheryl Greenhouse and Norris Greenhouse to secure the release o f their son pending

O n

November

19 , 2015

Norris Greenhouse,

Jr .

filed

a

Motion

fo r

Immediate Release from

Trial..



and

enforce

t he

bail.

T he facts in the case a t bar confirm that Norris Greenhouse, Sr. one of the persons

attempting

to

post

a

property bond,

is an

Attorney

a t Law

licensed

to

practice

in the

State

o f

Louisiana

and is

also

an

Assistant District Attorney

fo r

Avoyelles Parish. Norris Greenhouse,

Sr.

is the father of Norris Greenhouse, Jr . the defendant in these proceedings. Although th e Court o f

public opinion

has

already tried

and

convicted both defendants, this Court

has not .

This Court

is a

Court

o f

Justice

and

Justice will

be

served.

In our

system

o f

Justice, persons

who a re

arrested

and

accused

o f

crimes

a re

entitled

to

Bail.

Louisiana Constitution Article

1.

Section

18

provides

fo r a

constitutional guaranty

o f

bail before

and

during trial, except fo r capital offenses where the proof is evident and the presumption o f guilt is

great.

T he

purpose

o f

Bail

and

definition

o f

Bail

is set

forth

in

Code

o f

Criminal Procedure Article

311 and

provides that Bail

is the

security given

by a

person

to

assure

h is

appearance before

the

proper Court whenever required.

We are all

aware that

one of the

most fundamental principles

o f

our law is

that

a

person accused

o f a

crime

i s

innocent until proven guilty beyond

a

reasonable doubt.

Regardless

o f

public opinion and/or rumors about evidence and/or particular facts

of any

case, every

person accused

o f

committing

a

crime

is

entitled

to his day in

Court

and is

entitled

to a

fair Trial.

Persons accused o f crimes a re also entitled to Bail which, a s stated above, i s issued in order t o assure

the

appearance

of the

defendant before

the

proper Court whenever required.

Article

312 of the

Code

of

Criminal Procedure proviso

ror

certain types

o f

Bail, which

include

a

bond secured

by a

commercial security;

a

cash deposit;

o r

with

the

Court's approval,

by

a secured personal surety; or by a bond secured by the property of the defendant, or by any

combination thereof.

T h e

conditions

fo r

providing

a

property bond

are set

forth

in

Code

of

Criminal



It first must be stated that in rejecting t he proposed property bond submitted by Cheryl and

Norris Greenhouse and/or bond

o f any

nature submitted

by

Norris Greenhouse,

Sr. ,

Doug Anderson

in his capacity as Sheriff of Avoyelles Parish, did the right thing. A literal reading of Article 320

requires the Sheriff to reject any bond submitted by an Attorney at Law . Further, o ur Supreme Court

has

often stated that

our

laws

are to be

interpreted

as

written

and the

plain wording

of any law

should

be maintained. However, our Supreme Court has also ruled that any laws which violate persons

rights to due process should not be enforced as written.

In researching Article 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure al l parties to this proceeding

and

this Court have found very little authority. This

is a

statute that obviously

has not

been tested.

I t was

first enacted

in 1880

with

the

prohibition

on

attorneys added

in 1928. In

attempting

to

ascertain the purpose of the addition of attorneys to Article 320 , this Court could only assume that

this

wa s to

prohibit attorneys from posting bond

or

bail

as a way o f

securing

n ew

clients. What other

purpose could there be?

Further, this Court

is

personally aware

of

attorneys posting bond

for

their children

on

prior

occasions in Avoyelles Parish, and on each and every occasion this attorney/father did not represent

his own son . This Court is also aware wherein an attorney himself in Avoyelles Parish w as accused

of a

crime

and

allowed

to

post

his own

bond. Certainly

any

other result produces absurd

and

unreasonable results.

It is clear that ethical considerations were at the core of the implementation of Article 320.

In the case at bar, Norris Greenhouse, Sr. is simply the father of Norris Greenhouse, Jr. and

attempting

to

post

a

1,000,000.00 bond that

is

also subject

to

serious restrictions. There certainly

are no ethical considerations applicable t o Norris Greenhouse, Sr. He is simply a father w h o desires

his son to be

released from jail pending Trial. This

is the

desire

o f

parents

in 99.9 of

cases that this



Further, consider this

— If

this Court were

t o

deny

the

Motion before

the

Court, what would

stop Cheryl and Norris Greenhouse from donating their property to a relative a nd having that relative

post the property as bond? Certainly nothing would prohibit this and it is absurd and unreasonable

to force any person to do this.

In the

case

at bar the

application

of

Article

320 to

Norris Greenhouse,

Sr.

clearly

is a

violation of the fundamental right o f due process given to every individual, including Norris

Greehouse, J r . Th e application o f Article 32 0 to the case at bar produces a n absurd and unreasonable

result. Further the State o f Louisiana h as given no compelling reason to maintain the application o f

the statute a s written.

Accoion before

th e

Court, what wouldff

of

Avoyelles Parish,

is

hereby ORDERED

t o

accept

as

security

fo r

dative

and

taorris Greenhouse,

Jr. any

property and/or security posted

by

Cheryl

Greenhouse and Norris Greenhouse, Sr. if all other requirements of law concerning submission o f

security are me t and that all special conditions of the bond as set forth in this Court s Order o f

Documents

Reasons for ruling in Norris Greenhouse Jr. hearing