Opinion ID: 1733223
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: equal protection/excessive punishment

Text: The State first argues that the trial courts erred by finding La.Rev.Stat. 14:89(A)(2) unconstitutional under Louisiana's Equal Protection clause. [17] Specifically, the trial courts concluded no rational basis exists for imposing harsher penalties for solicitation of crimes against nature than for solicitation of prostitution. A first offense solicitation of crime against nature conviction under La.Rev. Stat. 14:89(A)(2) is a felony and subjects the defendant to a fine of not more than $2000 or a prison term of not more than five years, or both. In contrast, a first offense solicitation of prostitution conviction under La.Rev.Stat. 14:82 is a misdemeanor and subjects the defendant to a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. Although the trial courts emphasize that crime against nature convictions are punished harsher than prostitution convictions, their determination that an equal protection violation results from the two statutes overlapping lacks merit. This court in Neal, 500 So.2d 374 (La.1987), addressed the constitutionality of solicitation for prostitution and solicitation for crime against nature. In a ruling similar to those issued by the trial courts in the instant cases, the trial court in Neal declared La.Rev.Stat. 14:89(A)(2) unconstitutional because of the fact that the prosecutor can pick any one of four statutes and not only prosecute but pick the penalty depending on how he feels about an individual where the same exact activity fits every statute. Neal, 500 So.2d at 376. In reversing the trial court, this court held that even assuming the two offenses totally overlapped, we are not aware of how this statutory arrangement conflicts with any constitutional principle. Id. at 378. This court further noted that the policy of our criminal code recognizes that there will be overlapping in the code sections and other statutes and expressly provides that in such cases prosecution may proceed under either provision. Id. More specifically, under La.Rev.Stat. 14:4, when the offender's alleged conduct violates two criminal statutes, the prosecution may proceed under either provision at the discretion of the district attorney. See e.g., State v. Juluke, 374 So.2d 1259 (La. 1979) (district attorney has discretion to choose between prosecuting a defendant for forgery, a felony, or unauthorized use of a credit card, a misdemeanor); State v. Smith, 597 So.2d 1151 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 599 So.2d 311 (La.1992) (district attorney has power to prosecute under perjury, a five-year felony, or under a more specific municipal misdemeanor statute pertaining to misleading administrative agencies). In Baxley, we reiterated that the punishment of one type of conduct more severely than another similar type of conduct is not, of itself, an equal protection violation. Baxley, 94-2982, p. 9, 656 So.2d at 979. While the constitutional challenge to Baxley involved whether La.Rev.Stat. 14:89(A)(2) arbitrarily and discriminatorily punished homosexuals more than heterosexuals, (based on a comparison of the penalty provisions of the crime against nature statute and the prostitution statute), the holding equally applies to the instant case; the different punishment of two types of different conduct does not constitute an equal protection violation.