author: PER CURIAM WEIMER, J. CRICHTON, J.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn COOK
    No. 2016-KK-1518
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/03/2017
    LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Hon. Jeffrey Martin Landry, Attorney General, Colin Andrew Clark, Emma J. DeVilliér; Erica McLellan Schultz; for Applicant.

      ORLEANS PARISH PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, Colin Reingold, Sarah Davis O’Brien; for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM

11 Writ granted. This matter presents the closely interrelated questions of whether persons who are found not guilty of a sex offense by reason of insanity are subject to the sex offender registration and notification requirements of La.R.S. 15:540 et seq., and whether a petition for injunctive relief or for declaratory judgment regarding those requirements must be filed in the manner established by La.R.S. 15:544.1 when it pertains to such persons. Finding that the legislature chose for reasons of public safety to treat persons convicted of a sex offense the same as those found not guilty by reason of insanity for purposes of the sex offender registration and notification law, we conclude the district court erred in both finding it was the proper forum to hear respondent’s claim and in ruling that respondent be relieved of the obligation to register.

Although he bears various diagnoses, the 56-year-old respondent suffers from severe chronic mental illness involving at times paranoia, delusional and disordered thought processes, and mood instability. He has been in and out of psychiatric treatment since he was a teenager. In 1986, the district court found him not guilty by reason of insanity of attempted aggravated rape, an offense he attempted to commit while in an overtly psychotic state, and the court committed |2him to inpatient psychiatric treatment. He was released from inpatient treatment to a structured group home in 1999, and despite complying with treatment, he relapsed and was committed again to inpatient treatment in 2002. He was released again to another structured living unit in 2004. His treatment notes there indicate he attends an aftercare clinic, remains under psychiatric care, keeps all scheduled appointments, takes medications as directed, and violates no rules in the living unit, nor demonstrates any significant behavioral problems there. Nonetheless, he required emergency treatment in 2009 when he responded poorly to a medication adjustment. In 2015, he required hospitalization when he became acutely psychotic. He returned to the structured living unit in 2016. His treatment notes indicate that, although he cooperates with treatment and has made progress, he is unable to live in an unsupervised setting at this time.

Respondent filed a motion in the same district court in which he was originally found not guilty by reason of insanity, asking to be relieved of his obligation to register as a sex offender. The district court granted the motion. Thereafter, the state through the Attorney General filed a motion to rescind that order, arguing that Orleans Parish Criminal District Court was not the proper forum to make that determination because La,R.S. 15:544.1 establishes a procedure to seek to be relieved of the registration requirements with venue in the 19th J.D.C.:

Any petition for injunctive relief or for declaratory judgment regarding the registration and notification requirements of this Chapter as they apply to a particular offender convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense as defined in R.S. 15:541 or a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor as defined in R.S. 16:541, regardless of the date of conviction, which are based on theories of relief or grounds not specifically provided for in the provisions of this Chapter, shall be filed through ordinary civil proceedings by the offender, the state, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, office of state police, or the office of the attorney general, in the district court for the parish where the state capitol is situated.

I ¡Added by Acts 2013, No. 284, § 1. After a hearing, the district court found this provision inapplicable because respondent was not convicted of a sex offense but rather had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The district court' further declined to rescind its previous order. The district court erred,

A legislative statement of the purpose of Louisiana’s sex offender registration and notification requirements appears in La,R.S. 15:540. It provides:

A. The legislature finds that- sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators often pose a high risk of engaging in sex offenses, and crimes against victims who are minors even after being released from incarceration or commitment and that protection of the public from sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators is of paramount governmental interest. The legislature further finds that local law enforcement officers’ efforts to protect their communities, conduct investigations, and quickly apprehend offenders who commit sex offenses and crimes against victims who are minors, are impaired'by the lack of information available to law enforcement agencies about convicted sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators who live within the agency’s jurisdiction, and the penal and mental health components of our justice system are largely hidden from public view and that lack of information from either may result in failure of both systems to meet this paramount concern of public safety. Restrictive confidentiality and liability laws governing the release of information about sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators have reduced willingness to release information that could be appropriately released under the public disclosure laws, and have increased risks to public safety. Persons found to have committed a sex offense or a crime against a yictim who is a minor have a reduced expectation of privacy because of the public’s interest in public safety and in the effective operation of government. Release of information about sex offenders, sexually, violent predators, and child predators to public agencies, and under limited circumstances to the general public, will further the governmental interests of public safety and public scrutiny of the criminal and mental health systems so long as the information released is rationally related to the furtherance of those goals.
B. Therefore, this state’s policy is to assist local law enforcement agencies’ efforts to protect their communities by requiring sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators to register with state and local law enforcement agencies and to require the exchange of relevant information about sex offender's, sexually violent predators, and child predators among state, local, and federal public agencies and officials and to authorize the release of necessary and relevant information about sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators to members of the general public-as provided in this Chapter.

14Added by Acts 1992, No. 388, § 1. Amended by Acts 1997, No. 1147, § 1. It is clear from this statement of- purpose that, in an effort to protect the public, the legislature enacted the.sex offender registration and notification requirements because it. found that persons who commit certain sex offenses are particularly likely to commit additional sex offenses in the future. Faced with the heightened risk of recidivism by these offenders, the legislature opted to disseminate information to both the public and law enforcement agencies that would otherwise be unavailable.

Furthermore, it is clear from this statement of purpose that the legislature was concerned not only with the .elevated risk that sex offenses would be repeatedly committed by persons with a prior conviction. In fact, the word “convicted” appears only once in that lengthy statement of purpose, within the context of what would appear to be a non-exhaustive list of the sort of information that could assist law enforcement in protecting the community from sex offenders: “The legislature further finds that local law enforcement officers’ efforts to protect their communities, conduct investigations, and quickly apprehend offenders who commit sex offenses and crimes against victims who are minors, are impaired by the lack of information available to law enforcement agencies about convicted sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators who live within the agency’s jurisdiction, .... ” In striking comparison, the legislature repeatedly refers in the same statement of purpose to the much broader categories of “sex offenders,” “offenders who commit sex offenses,” and “persons found to have committed a sex offense.” Of particular significance to the questions presented in the present case is the legislature’s inclusion of an allusion to mentally ill sex offenders in the form of a reference to release “from incarceration or commitment,” and an expression of concern that “the penal and mental health components of our justice system are largely hidden from public view and that lack of information | ¡from either may result in failure of both systems .... ” These latter aspects have appeared in the legislative statement of purpose from the beginning and were unaffected by the 1997 amendment, which only broadened the statement of purpose to encompass sexually violent predators and those who prey on children.

As noted above, La.R.S. 15:544.1 establishes procedures for challenging the registration and notification requirements “as they apply to a particular offender convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense” and further establishes venue for that challenge in the 19th J.D.C. Similarly, La.R.S. 15:542(A) requires “[a]ny adult residing in this state who has pled guilty to, has been convicted of, or where adjudication has been deferred or withheld for the perpetration or attempted perpetration of, or any conspiracy to commit” certain sex offenses and criminal offenses against a minor victim, as further specified within other provisions, to register and provide notification. Respondent here contends that he is neither obligated to register nor bound by that venue requirement, because those provisions refer only to persons convicted of a sex offense and a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is not tantamount to a conviction.

Respondent is correct that a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is not tantamount to a conviction. A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is a determination that defendant undoubtedly committed the charged criminal act but he cannot be punished for it because he was legally insane at the time of his actions. See State v. Branch, 99-1484, p. 1 (La. 3/17/00), 759 So.2d 31, 32 (per curiam) (“A Louisiana jury considering an accused’s dual plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity must nevertheless first determine whether the state has proved the essential elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt before it may proceed to a determination of whether he was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the time of the offense and therefore exempt from criminal responsibility for his acts.”); see also Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 363, 103 S.Ct. 3043, 3049, 77 L.Ed.2d 694 (1983) (“A verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity establishes two ■ facts: (i) the defendant committed an act that constitutes a criminal offense, and (ii) he committed the act because of mental illness.”).

However, the fact that a finding of guilty and a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity are not the same within ordinary legal usage does not answer the question of whether the legislature intended to require persons found not guilty by reason of insanity to register. That question is answered by the definitions section of the sex offender registration and notification law, specifically by La.R.S. 15:541(7), which provides:

“Conviction or other disposition adverse to the subject” means any disposition of charges, except a decision not to prosecute, a dismissal, or an acquittal, except when the acquittal is due to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity and the person was committed. However, a dismissal entered after a period of probation, suspension, or deferral of sentence shall be considered a disposition adverse to the subject.

This provision defines for purposes of the registration and notification law “conviction or other disposition adverse to the subject” to exclude an acquittal “except when the acquittal is due to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity and the person was committed.” Respondent here was both acquitted due to.a finding of not guijty by reason of insanity and then committed, and therefore falls within the reach of this definition.

Under the general rules of statutory construction, the interpretation of any statutory provision begins with the language of the statute itself. McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., 10-2775, p. 11 (La. 7/1/11), 65 So.3d 1218, 1227. When the provision is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, its language must be given effect, and its provisions must be construed so as to give effect to the purpose indicated by a fair interpretation of the language used. La. Civ. Code art. 9; La. Rev. Stat. § 1:4; Milbert v. Answering Bureau, Inc., 13-0022 (La. 6/28/13), 120 So.3d 678, 684. Unequivocal provisions are not subject to judicial construction and should be applied by giving words their generally understood meaning. La. Civ. Code art. 11; La. Rev. Stat. § 1:3; see also Snowton v. Sewerage and Water Bd., 08-0399, pp. 5-6 (La. 3/17/09), 6 So.3d 164, 168.

While La.R.S. 15:541(7) could be better drafted, we cannot say its meaning is unclear. It defines conviction to include any disposition of the charges other than those specifically excluded, such as an acquittal, and further excludes from acquittals those that result from a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity when the person is committed. Thus, a conviction, for purposes of the sex offender registration and notification law, is specifically defined to include a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, provided the person was, also committed. Therefore, the word “conviction” throughout that law should be read to encompass not only those convicted but also “persons found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed,” as the legislature has directed.

The fact that the legislature also swept up “other disposition adverse to the subject” within this definition, and in fact chose to group those dispositions together with convictions within quotation marks, does not change our view. The legislature’s use of “conviction or other disposition adverse to the subject” (set off by quotation marks within the definition) followed by the failure to use that .unitary phrase within the remainder of the sex offender notification and register law (with two exceptions) might raise an interpretational question, that could implicate the rule of lenity in a criminal statute. The registration and notification law is, | showever, a civil regulatory scheme that is intended to alert the public and law enforcement for purposes of public safety; 4t is not part, of a sex offender’s punishment, See State. ex rel. Olivieri v. State, 00-0172, p. 20 (La. 2/21/01), 779 So.2d 735, 747 ([I]t is apparent that the intent of the Legislature was to alert the public for the purpose of public safety, a remedial intent, not to punish convicted sex offenders.”). While criminal statutes are to be construed strictly, State ex rel. Robinson v. Blackburn, 367 So.2d 360, 363 (La. 1979), we previously explained that this civil regulatory scheme governing sex offender registration and notification should be read “in its entirety according to its paramount governmental interest of protecting the citizens of this state,” State v. Clark, 12-1296, p. 6 (La. 5/7/13), 117 So.3d 1246, 1250. When read in its' entirety, and in particular in light of the legislative statement of purpose, the legislature has made' its interest in this provision perfectly clear, and we are bound to effectuate that intent. See State v. Piazza, 596 So.2d 817, 819 (La. 1992) (“Legislative intent is the fundamental question in all cases of statutory interpretation, and "rules of statutory construction are designed to ascertain and enforce the intent of the statute.”). Furthermore, we cannot say it is unreasonable that the legislature would choose, as a matter of public safety, to disseminate information regarding those proved beyond a reasonable 'doubt to have committed certain sex offenses, regardless of whether the 19offender had the capacity at the time of the offense to be held criminally culpable for his actions.

Finding that any ambiguity in these provisions can be resolved by reading the law in its entirety and with reference to the legislature’s statement .of purpose, we hold that the term conviction, as used within the sex offender registration and notification law, has been defined by La.R.S. 15:541(7) to exclude an acquittal “except when the acquittal is due to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity and the person was committed.” Because respondent falls within the plain language of that definition, he was bound to seek the relief he requested within the 19th J.D.C. in accordance with La.R.S. 15:544.1. Therefore, the district court erred in not rescinding its ruling that relieved respondent of the obligation to register as a sex offender. Accordingly we grant the state’s application and vacate the district court’s ruling.

WEIMER, J.

dissenting

hi respectfully dissent.

This matter tests this court’s commitment to the ancient and bedrock principle that a court must apply the law as written by the legislature and that the court.is bound by the words the legislature enacted. Rather than deviate from that bedrock principle, and precisely because the sex offender registration and notification provisions of La. R.S. 15:540 et seq. apply by their plain language to persons convicted of certain sex offenses but not to persons found not guilty by reasons of insanity, I would find the district court correctly determined it was the proper forum to hear respondent’s claim and in ruling that respondent was under no obligation to register.

As the majority acknowledges, La. R.S. 15:544.1 establishes procedures for challenging the registration and notification requirements “as they apply to a particular offender convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense” and | ¡¿further establishes venue for that challenge in the 19th J.D.C. Similarly, La. R.S. 15:542(A) requires “[a]ny adult residing in this state who has pled guilty to, has been convicted of, or where adjudication has been deferred or withheld for the perpetration or attempted perpetration of, or any conspiracy to commit” certain sex offenses and criminal offenses against a minor victim, as further specified within other provisions, to register and provide notification. The majority recognizes that the prerequisite there be a conviction not only.appears in these two provisions but permeates the entire sex offender registration and notification law. The majority finds, however, based on the definition of “conviction or other disposition adverse, to the subject” provided in La. R.S. 16:542(7), that the word “conviction”—in each instance in which it appears in the sex offender registration and notification law—is synonymous with an acquittal due to a finding of not guilty by reasons of insanity.

The majority bases that conclusion on two brief references that appear in the legislative statement of purpose provided in La. R.S. 15:540—references to “incarceration or commitment” and “the penal and mental health components of our justice system”—as indicating a clear legislative intent that persons found not guilty of a sex offense by reason of insanity should be treated identically as those convicted of a sex offense. Notably, however, no explicit statement- of that proposition' appears in La. R.S. 15:540, and as to the purpose of those two brief references this court can only speculate.

Regardless, statutory interpretation begins not with speculation as to what the legislature might have intended; statutory interpretation begins “as [it] must, with the language of the statute.” Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 143, 116 S.Ct. 501, 506, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). “Unequivocal provisions are not subject to judicial construction and should be applied by giving words their generally understood meaning.” State v. Oliphant, 12-1176, p. 5 (La. 3/19/13), 113 So.3d 165, 168; see also Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) (“In any event, canons of construction are no more than rules of thumb to help courts determine the meaning of legislation, and in interpreting a statute a court should always turn first to one, cardinal canon before all others. We have stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there. When the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’ ” (citations omitted)).

In Louisiana, “convicted” means adjudicated guilty after a plea or after a trial on the merits. La. C.Cr.P. art. 934(3). Louisiana, unlike some other states, does not provide for a verdict in criminal cases of guilty but mentally ill. See generally State v. Branch, 99-1484 (La. 3/17/00), 759 So.2d 31; see also Judith A. Northrup, Guilty but Mentally Ill: Broadening the Scope of Criminal Responsibility, 44 Ohio St. L.J. 797 (1983) (distinguishing “guilty but mentally ill” from “not guilty by reason of insanity” and discussing the history of the insanity defense). While the legislature is free to define conviction for purposes of the sex offender registration and notification law to include an acquittal by reason of the insanity, the majority’s conclusion that the legislature has done so in La. R.S. 15:541(7) is mistaken.

^Appearing in the definitions section of the sex. offender registration and notification law, La.R.S. 15:541(7) provides:

“Conviction or other disposition adverse to the subject” means any disposition of charges, except a decision not to prosecute, a dismissal, or an acquittal, except when the acquittal is due to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity and the person was committed. However, a dismissal entered after a period of probation, suspension, or deferral of sentence shall be considered a disposition adverse to the subject.

As is readily apparent from its plain language, the statute defines a term—conviction or other disposition adverse to the subject—to, among other things, exclude an acquittal “except when the acquittal is due to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity and the person was committed.” Having defined the term “conviction or other disposition adverse to the subject,” the legislature proceeds to use it twice in the remainder of the sex offender registration and notification law: in La. R.S. 15:541(8) and (19). The former defines a “conviction record” to include “criminal history record information relating to an incident which has led to a conviction or other disposition adverse to the subject.” The latter defines “nonconviction data” to include “all criminal history record information relating to an incident which has not led to a conviction or other disposition adverse to the subject, and for which proceedings are no longer actively pending.” Conviction records and nonconviction data are the subject of rules pertaining to the dissemination of information by criminal justice agencies, which are beyond the scope of the present case. It suffices to say the legislature defined a term, i.e. “conviction or other disposition adverse to the subject” in the definitions section and then utilized it elsewhere in this law, as is to be expected. Notably absent, however, is any use of the term “conviction or other disposition adverse to the subject” in La. R.S. 15:542 (when it declares who is obligated to register) or La. R.S. 15:544.1 (when it provides a mechanism and a forum- for disputing the registration requirements), which refer to conviction.

| ¡¡When a term used in a statute is undefined, as conviction is here, it is to be given its ordinary meaning. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476, 114 S.Ct. 996, 1001, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (“In the absence of such a definition, we construe a statutory term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning.”). Furthermore, as stated emphatically by the United States Supreme Court and reproduced above, “[w]e have stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” As this court has found, “‘[wjhen a law is clear and unambiguous, and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, it shall be applied as written with no further interpretation made in search of legislative intent.’ ” State v. Williams, 10-1515, p. 6 (La. 3/15/11), 60 So.3d 1189, 1192 (quoting Cat’s Meow v. City of New Orleans, 98-0601, p. 15 (La. 10/20/98), 720 So.2d 1186, 1198). No absurdity is apparent in applying this law as it is written. To the contrary, the majority’s finding that all persons found not guilty by reason of insanity of a sex offense must register without regard to any individual determination as to their ability to comply with the law or any individual assessment of their danger to the community skirts far closer to an absurd consequence than applying the plain and unequivocal language of the statute. In the first place, such an individualized assessment appears quite feasible under current law. Specifically, La. C.Cr.P. art. 657.1(B) authorizes the conditional discharge from inpatient treatment of an insanity acquit-tee subject to “such orders and conditions it seems will best meet the acquittee’s need for treatment, supervision, and monitoring and will best serve the interests of justice and society.” Such broad grant of authority to the district court would appear to include the authority to order the insanity acquittee to comply with part or all of the sex offender registration and notification provisions, as deemed by the district court to meet that person’s capabilities, need for supervision and monitoring, and to best serve the interests of society. | fiIn contrast with this sensible and individualized approach, the majority’s position potentially sanctions a Kafkaesque scenario whereby a person who is found not guilty of a sex offense by reason of insanity and fails to register must present another insanity defense, this one to the felony charge of failure to register (and presumably another when he fails to register after that, and another, with no end in sight). Such a result is evocative of the old saying (attributed to many, including both Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein), “Insanity is doing the same thing over and oyer and expecting different results.” It also disregards the reality that, while legal insanity or impossibility may be a, valid defense, to a charge of failure to register, a defendant typically only prevails on a defense after being subjected to a potentially lengthy pretrial incarceration (which can result in the loss of employment and housing), and enduring substantial distress. A severely and chronically mentally ill person, such as the respondent in this case, would appear particularly ill-suited to endure that process, which could be why the legislature drafted .the sex offender registration and notification law in a manner that, while allowing dissemination of information by criminal justice agencies pertaining to persons found hot guilty by reason of insanity, does not impose the onerous registration and notification requirements on them; But, as noted above, no inquiry into legislative intent is appropriate when the language of the statute is clear.

The majority’s conclusion that La. R.S. 15:541(7) defines conviction to be synonymous with a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity for the purposes of La. R.S. 15:542 and 15:544.1 is also in conflict with another provision of the sex offender registration and notification law. The provision that authorizes the release 17of information by criminal justice agencies and provides for civil immunity, La. R.S. 15:546, provides in Part (B)(1):

An elected official, public employee, public agency, or 'criminal justice agency shall be immune from civil liability for damages for any discretionary decision to release relevant and necessary information, unless it is shown that the official, employee, or agency acted with gross negligence or in bad faith. The authorization and immunity in this Chapter apply to information regarding:

(a) A person who has been convicted of a sex offense or criminal offense against a victim who is a minor, or who has been determined to be a sexually violent predator as defined in this Chapter.

(b) A person found not guilty by reason of insanity of a sex offense or criminal offense against a victim who is á minor.

(c) A person found incompetent to stand trial for a sex offense or criminal offense against a victim who is a minor and subsequently committed to a treatment facility or institution or hospital.

Added by Acts 1992, No. 388, § 1. Amended by Acts 1997, No. 1147, § 1. If “a person who has been convicted of a sex offense” is synonymous with “a person found not guilty by reason of insanity of a sex offense” then La. R.S, 15:546(B)(l)(b) is wholly superfluous. See In re Succession of Boyter, 99-0761, p. 9 (La. 1/7/00), 756 So.2d 1122, 1129 (“Courts should give effect to all parts of a statute and should not give a statute an interpretation that makes any part superfluous or meaningless, if that result can be avoided.”). In addition, the written notification form, provided in the sex offender registration arid notification law, and to be used by ■ courts to provide the offender with the information necessaiy to be aware of his registration obligation and how to fulfil that obligation, makes no reference to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. Instead, it indicates that the offender has “pled guilty to, been found guilty of, or been adjudicated delinquent of’ an offense that requires registration. See La. R.S. 15:543.1.

Presuming the legislature said in the sex offender registration and notification law what it meant and meant in that law what it said, I respectfully decline to follow the majority’s lead and delve into legislative intent when the | slanguage of the law is unequivocal. Under the plain the language of La. R.S. 15:541(7), 15:542, and 15:544.1, respondent, who was found not guilty of attempted rape in 1986 by reason of insanity, committed for treatment, and now lives in a supervised living facility where he cooperates fully with treatment and shows no indication that he presents a risk to the public, is neither obliged to register as a sex offender nor is required to seek a declaration that he is not so required in the 19th J.D.C. Therefore, I would find the district court correctly declined the state’s request to rescind that court’s ruling that respondent is under no obligation to register as a sex offender, and the court of appeal correctly unanimously denied writs.

CRICHTON, J.

additionally concurs and assigns reasons:

|/The respondent/defendant has argued that a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is not tantamount to a conviction—which is true. However, such a disposition does not mean that the defendant did not commit the charged offense. It is only because he was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time that he is exempt from criminal responsibility. He is not innocent; he does not stand exonerated. Indeed, as explained in the majority opinion, a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity constitutes a “disposition adverse to the subject.” See R.S. 15:541(7); State v. Branch, 99-1484 (La. 3/17/00), 759 So.2d 31 (“[A] verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity rests on a determination by the factfinder that the defendant committed the acts charged against him... ”).

In my view, any defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity, treated, and returned to the public, has the potential for relapse and, in such an event, poses no less a risk than one who is convicted, incarcerated for a period of time, and then released into the community. Considering the heightened risk, I believe the public has a corresponding heightened expectation and a right to know that this once insane defendant committed attempted aggravated rape and has returned to the community. Accordingly, it is consistent with law, legislative intent, and public policy that this respondeni/defendant be required to register as a sex offender.

GENOVESE, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Weimer, J.

      . La.R.S. 15:541(8) and (19) also reference “conviction or other disposition adverse to the subject.” Those provisions define “conviction data” and “nonconviction data” and those definitions are , utilized in La.R.S. 15:548, which pertains to the dissemination of criminal history records.

      . Regarding lenity, this court has stated:
      The principle of lenity developed on the basis that á person should not be criminally punished unless the law has provided a fair warning of what conduct will be considered criminal. 3 N. Singer, at § 59.04. The rule does not merely reflect a convenient maxim of statutory construction; but is based on the fundamental principle of due process that no person should be forced to speculate whether his conduct is prohibited. Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 99 S.Ct 2190, 60 L.Ed.2d 743 (1979). Questions concerning the ambit of a criminal statute should be resolved-in favor of lenity. Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. 814, 94 S.Ct. 1262, 39 L.Ed.2d 782 (1974). The rule of lenity applies not only to interpretations' of the substantive dfnbit of criminal laws, but also to the penalties imposed by those laws. Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 100 S.Ct. 2247, 65 L.Ed.2d 205 (1989); State v. Bosworth, 373 So.2d 152 (La. 1979).

        State v. Piazza, 596 So.2d 817, 820 (La. 1992) (emphasis added).

      . See, e.g., State v. Williams, 37 La.Ann, 776, 777 (1885) ("Courts cannot safely hold that the Legislative intent is not conveyed by the words used in a statute, unless the words or the language to be construed are glaringly ambiguous or clearly redundant.”); see also Castrique v. Page, (1853) 138 Eng. Rep. 1278, 1280 (C.B.) (Jervis, C.J.) (describing this principle as "the golden rule of statutory construction” and noting that the court was not “at liberty to speculate as to what would be most conducive to the benefit of the public, and as to'the reasons which induced the legislature to'enact as they have done, instead of endeavoring to put a construction upon the words we find, .... ”).

      . For example, the .legislature did so for purposes of the arson registry:
      "Conviction” means any disposition of charges adverse to the defendant, including a plea of guilty, deferred adjudication, adjudication withheld for the perpetration or attempted perpetration of or conspiracy to commit an offense involving arson. "Conviction” shall not include a decision not to prosecute, a dismissal, or an acquittal, except when the acquittal is due to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity and the person was committed. However, a dismissal entered after a period of probation, suspension, or deferral of sentence shall be included in the definition of "conviction” for purposes of this Chapter.
      La.R.S. 15:562.1(1). That definition is significantly different from the definition provided in La.R.S. 15:541(7), which is reproduced and discussed at length herein. It should also be noted that it is a far simpler matter to comply with the arson registration requirements than the much more onerous registration and notification requirements imposed on sex offenders.

      . The idea that a defendant might prevail on a repeated series of insanity defenses is used rhetorically here only to illustrate the point. Given the difficulty of ever mounting a successful insanity defense, see generally Ira Mickenberg, A Pleasant Surprise: the Guilty But Mentally III Verdict has Both Succeeded in Its Own Right and Successfully Preserved the

        Traditional Role of the Insanity Defense, 55 U. Cin. L, Rev. 943, 968-69 (1987) (reviewing studies showing insanity defense rarely used and increasingly rarely successful), repeatedly prevailing on an insanity ■ defense seems extremely unlikely. The more likely outcome seems that the application of the sex offender registration and notification law, as sanctioned by the majority, would simply result in the eventual incarceration of persons found not guilty of a sex offense by reason of insanity,


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: GENOVESE, JUSTICE JOHNSON, C.J., WEIMER, J., CRICHTON, J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    SUCCESSIONS OF Jeanette Rena TONEY, wife of/and Ronnie Robert Toney
    No. 2016-C-1534
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/03/2017
    Rehearing Denied June 29, 2017

      Gary James Williams; SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC, Jack Marks Allmont, Max Nathan, Jr., April Lee Watson; for Applicant.
    ROY K. BURNS JR., LLC, Roy K. Burns, Jr.; for Respondent.
   GENOVESE, JUSTICE

hWe granted writs in this succession case to determine whether the testament at issue is valid under Louisiana law, where the first two pages of the testament were initialed rather than signed and where the testament contains no attestation clause which meets all of the requirements of La. Civ.Code art. 1577, nor any attestation by the notary beyond the general notarization. For the following reasons, we find the propounded testament materially deviated from the form requirements of La. Civ.Code art. 1577 and is thus absolutely null pursuant to La. Civ. Code art. 1573.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ronnie Robert Toney, the decedent in this case, passed away on January 19, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “Mr. Toney”). He was predeceased by his second wife, Jeannette Rena Toney, who died on October 18, 1999. Mrs. Toney had no children. In her will, which was executed on September 23, 1993, she bequeathed her entire estate to her husband, or, if he did not survive her, to Richie Glenn Gerding (hereinafter referred to as “Gerding” or “applicant). Mrs. Toney’s succession was not opened immediately upon her death.

|9On April 13, 2015, Gerding filed a “Petition for Filing and Execution of Testaments and for Confirmation of Independent Executor,” with Mrs. Toney’s September 23, 1993 will attached, along with a document entitled “Last Will and Testament of Ronnie R. Toney,” dated August 2, 2014. Gerding sought to file and execute both testaments and to have the court appoint him as independent executor of the couple’s successions. Both testaments were probated. However, on May 6, 2015, John Huey Pierce Jenkins (hereinafter referred to as “Jenkins” or “plaintiff’), the uncle of Mr. Toney, filed a petition for annulment of the August 2, 2014 testament, alleging that “the purported notarial testament of the decedent is an absolute nullity for lack of form.” Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the testament was not in compliance with the requirements of La. Civ.Code art. 1577, because the testament was not signed on each separate page, the attestation clause was not in proper form, and the notary, witnesses, and testator were not in the presence of each other at the execution of the testament.

The August 2, 2014 testament, as submitted by Gerding, consists of three numbered pages along with an attached, though unnumbered, affidavit. Instead of a full signature, only the printed initials “RT” are found on the bottom left corner of the first two pages of the testament, which contain all but the end of the last sentence of the dispositive provisions of the will. The third page of the testament begins with the conclusion of this sentence and appears as follows:

[...] shall be determined by such beneficiaries if they can agree, and if not, by my Executor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name below, this 2 day of August, 2014.
Testator Signature: Ronnie R Toney
[signed]
Ronnie R. Toney
|aWe, the undersigned, hereby certify that the above instrument, which consists of 3[] pages, including the page(s) which contain the witness signatures, was signed in our sight and presence by Ronnie R. Toney (the “testator), who declared this instrument to be his/her Last Will and Testament and we, at the Testator’s request and in the Testator’s sight and presence, and in the sight and presence of each other, do hereby subscribe our names as witnesses on the date shown above.

[This clause is followed by signatures of Angela Dutel, ’ Robert A. Davis, and William J. Orazio, Jr.]

An additional, unnumbered page entitled “Affidavit” is attached to the three-paged testament and appears as follows:

I, Ronnie'R. Toney, the Testator, sign my name to this instrument this 2 day of August, 2014, and being first duly sworn, do hereby declare to the undersigned authority that I sign and execute this instrument as my Will and that I sign it willingly, in the presence of the undersigned witnesses, that I execute it as my free and voluntary act for the purposes expressed in the Will, and that I am eighteen years üf age or older, of sound mind, and under no constraint or undue influence.
Testator Signature: Ronnie R. Toney [signed]
Ronnie R. Toney
We, Angela Dutel and Robert A. Davis and William Orazio, the witnesses, sign our names to this instrument, being first duly sworn, and do hereby declare to the undersigned authority that the Testator signs and executes this instrument as the Testator’s will and that the Testator signs it willingly, and that the Testator executes it.as the Testator’s free and voluntary act for the purposes expressed in the well, and that each of us, in the presence and hearing of the Testator, at the Testator’s request, and in the presence of each other, hereby signs this will, on the date of the instrument, as witnesses to the Testator’s signing, and that to the best of our knowledge the Testator is eighteen years of age or older, of sound mind and memory, and under no constraint -or undue influence, and the witnesses are of adult age and otherwise competent to be witnesses.

Three witnesses’ signatures are found under this provision, with the third witness’s signature falling on the following page. The affidavit then concludes:,

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COUNTY OF (NOT COUNTY) [sic] PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY
I ¿Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged by Ronnie R. Toney, the Testator; and subscribed and sworn to before me by Angela Dutel and Robert A. Davis and William Orazio, witnesses;'this 2 day of August 2014.
Louis G. Dutel III, 66⅛15 [signed]
Notary public, or other officer authorized to take and certify acknowledgments and administer oaths.

[Louis Dutel’s notarial stamp and Ronnie R. Toney’s full signature are also found on the concluding page of- the affidavit.]

After a hearing in' which the parties stipulated that Jenkins was the nearest heir of Toney, the trial court judge found that the testament in question was absolutely null for lack of form, stating in oral reasons'that, in his' opinion, although the initials instead of a signature by itself would have been sufficient to meet the 'requirements of the notarial will, the attestation clause was also deficient, as it did not address whether the witnesses attested to viewing the testator sign each page, which is a requirement.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the will did not substantially comply with the requirements of La. Civ. Code art. 1577, because it failed “to state that the testator declared, in the presence of the notary, that the testament was his last will and testament or that all persons signed in the presence of each other, including the notary.” Successions of Toney, 2015-1928, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/3/16), 195 So.3d 672, 675, unit granted 16-1534 (La. 12/16/16), 212 So.3d 1168. Judge Higginbotham dissented, noting that no fraud was indicated or pled and finding that the clause signed by the notary substantially complies with the requirements of La.- Civ.Code art. 1577 in light of this court’s holding in In re Succession of Holbrook, 13-1181 (La. 1/28/14), 144 So.3d 845. Jenkins subsequently appealed the First Circuit’s holding, and this court granted writs.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

LThis case tests the limits of what constitutes compliance with the formal requirements of La. Civ.Code. art. 1577 for the purpose of confecting a valid notarial testament under Louisiana law. The notarial testament is one of only two forms of testaments currently permissible under Louisiana law—the other being the olographic, or handwritten, testament. There is a presumption in favor of the validity of testaments in general, and proof of the nonobservance of formalities must be exceptionally compelling to rebut that presumption. In re Succession of Holbrook, p.11, 144 So.3d at 853. However, the Civil Code also provides in no uncertain terms that “[t]he formalities prescribed for the execution of a testament must be observed or the testament is absolutely null,” La. Civ.Code art, 1573 (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the codal article which provides the form requirements for the notarial testament does contain an allowance that the mandated attestation clause need only be “substantially similar” to the sample declaration provided in statute:

Louisiana Civil Code Art. 1577. Requirements of Form.
The notarial testament shall be prepared in writing and dated and shall be executed in the following manner. If the testator knows how to sign his name and to read and is physically able to do both, then:
(1) In the presence, of a notary.and two competent witnesses, the testator shall declare or signify to them that the instrument is his testament and shall sign his name of at the end of the testament and on each other separate page.
(2) ■ In the presence of the testator and each other, the notary and the witnesses shall sign the following declaration, or one substantially similar: “In our presence the testator has declared or signified that this instrument is his testament and has signed it at the end and on each other separate page, and in the presence of the testator and each other we have hereunto subscribed our' names this — day of-,-.”

The notarial testament was added to the Civil Code in the 1997 revision. Comment (a) to La. Civ.Code art. 1577 provides “[t]his article reproduces the | (¡substance of R.S. 9:2442. It does not change the law.” Thus, case law regarding both La. Civ. Code art. 1557 and its predecessor, La. R.S. 9:2442, is instructive.

The applicant argues that the lower courts’ holdings, finding no substantial compliance with La. Civ.Code art. 1577 in this case, are in direct conflict with In re Succession of Holbrook, 144 So.3d 845. In Holbrook, the only flaw with the testament at issue was -the. failure to- specify the “day” in the date contained in the attestation clause. In analyzing the validity of the testament, this court first noted that “[a]l-though [La. Civ.Code] Art. 1577, like former La.Rev.Stat. 9:2442, mandates the will be dated, it does not specify the location in the testament where the date must, appear.” Id. at 850. Summarizing previous case law, the court stated:

Louisiana courts have held that the complete absence of an attestation clause vdll be fatal to the validity of a notarial will. See In re Succession of Richardson, 05-0552 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/06), 934 So.2d 749, writ denied, 06-0896 (La. 6/2/06), 929 So.2d 1265; Succession of English, 508 So.2d 631, 633 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1987). However, courts have also held the attestation clause itself must only be “substantially similar” to the attestation clause in Art. 1577, such that minor deviations in form with regard to the date in the attestation clause do not render the testament invalid in the absence of any indication of fraud. See In re Succession of Hebert, 12-281 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/3/12), 101 So.3d 131; Succession of Armstrong, 93-2385 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/18/94), 636 So.2d 1109, writ denied, 94-1370 (La. 9/16/94), 642 So.2d 196; cf. Succession of Bel, 377 So.2d 1380 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1979)(statutory will that contained a date in the attestation clause but not in the will itself was nevertheless valid).

Id. at 852 (emphasis added). Importantly, in Holbrook, the full date was unambiguously referenced on each page of the testament, despite its absence in the attestation clause, and the attestation clause itself was located between two unambiguous references to the full date. Thus, the oversight of failing to mention the day within the attestation clause constituted a “minor deviation,” and this courts found the attestation clause was thus “substantially similar” to the form found in La. Civ.Code. art 1577(2).

The applicant rightly notes that this court in Holbrook relied heavily on our previous decision in Succession of Guezuraga, 512 So.2d 366 (La. 1987). In Guezu-raga, the attack on the validity of the testament at issue was based exclusively on the decedent’s failure to sign the second page, which contained the conclusion of the testament’s attestation clause. The applicable statutory provision in that case was La. R.S. 9:2442(B)(l)(emphasis added), which, similar to current La. Civ.Code. art. 1577, required that:

In the presence of a notary and two competent witnesses, the testator shall declare or signify to them that the instrument is his last will and shall sign his name at the end of the will and on each separate page of the instrument.

Opponents to the will in Guezuraga argued that the term “will” referred only to the dispositive provisions, but that the term “instrument” encompassed the entire document, including the attestation clause. Because the testator had not signed the second page of the will, which included the end of the attestation clause, the opponents argued the will was invalid under a strict reading of the La. R.S. 9:2442(B)(1). This court disagreed, explaining:

But we are not required to ' give the statutory will a strict interpretation. The Legislature adopted the statutory will from the common law in order to avoid the rigid formal requirements of the Louisiana Civil Code. “The minimal formal requirements of the statutory will are only designed to provide a simplified means for a testator to express his testamentary intent and to assure, through his signification and his signing in the presence of a notary and two witnesses, that the instrument was intended to be his last will.” Succession of Porche v. Mouch, 288 So.2d 27, 30 (La.1973). In accordance with this legislative intent, courts liberally construe and apply the statute, maintaining the validity of the will if at all possible, as long as it is in substantial compliance with the statute. Note, Louisiana’s Statutory Will: The Role of Formal Requirements, 32 La. L.Rev. 452, 453 (1972). In deciding what constitutes substantial compliance, the courts look to the purpose of the formal requirements-to guard against fraud.

Guezuraga, 512 So.2d at 368. Relying on Guezuraga and on the fact that the trial court stated orally that it found no evidence of fraud in this case, the applicant seeks to have this court apply the guideline suggested by a law review article quoted favorably in that opinion: “When the departure from form has nothing whatsoever to do with fraud, ordinary common sense dictates that such departure should not produce nullity.” Id. at 368 (quoting Casenote, Donations—Imperfect Compliance with the Formal Requirements of the Statutory Will, 15 Loy. L. Rev. 362, 371 (1968-69)). However, as shown below, Guezeraga presented a distinguishable factual scenario in which this court faced only a slight irregularity in the placement of the testator’s signature. In contrast, applying this guideline as) c, suggested by applicant to uphold the validity of the testament at issue in this case would eviscerate the clear formal requirements of the Civil Code as put in place by the legislature.

In determining whether the will at issue was invalid for the testator’s failure to sign the final page containing the conclusion of the attestation clause, the Guezuraga court carefully examined the history and statutory construction of La. R.S. 9:2442 and concluded that, under the statute as amended, “[i]t is now clear that the testator need not sign after the attestation clause!;]” thus, the lack of the signature on the second page containing only the conclusion of the attestation clause did not invalidate the will. Id. at 369 (citation omitted). In contrast, after an examination of La. Civ.Code. art. 1577⅛ history and construction, we find no indication that the testator in this case met the legal formality requirements for the notarial will. While- it is true' that past Louisiana courts have validated notarial wills containing minor deviations from the statutory—and now codal—requirements, we find no error in the lower courts’ conclusion that the testament in the present case, viewed in its entirety, along with the attached affidavit, does not substantially comply with the formal requirements of La. Civ.Code art. 1577.

The propounded testament in the present case failed to comply with the formal requirements of La. Civ.Code art. 1577, in a several respects. First, La. Civ.Code art. 1557(1) requires that the testator “shall sign his name-of-at the end of the tester merit and on each other separate page.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the first two pages of the will are not signed, but are only initialed “R.T.” Further,- the initials are in print rather than cursive writing. Although signatures come in a variety of forms, and although a few appellate courts have upheld wills where] ]n some pages were initialed rather than signed, we note that La. Civ.Code art. 1557(1) unambiguously requires the testator to “sign his name at the end of the testament and on each other separate page,” and merely initialing undoubtedly falls' short of this ■ requirement. Particularly where, as here, the initials are written in easily imitable print rather than cursive, we are hesitant to find that this deviation from the codal requirement is merely minor or technical. Although fraud was not alleged at the trial court level, signing one’s name on each page of the will undoubtedly offers more heightened protection from surreptitious replacement of pages than mere initialing, particularly when the initialing is in print rather than cursive as is found here.

|nSecond, we find that the various clauses contained in the testament and the affidavit, even considered in aggregate, are not substantially similar to the sample attestation clause contained in La. Civ. Code art. 1577(2), which states:

In the presence of the testator and each other, the notary and the witnesses shall sign the following declaration, or one substantially similar: “In our presence the testator has .declared or signified that this instrument is his testament and has signed it at the end and on each other separate page, and in the presence of the testator and each other we have hereunto subscribed our names this — day of-,-.”

With regard to the attestation clause requirement, this court has stated:

There must be an attestation clause, or clause of declaration. However, its form is not sacrosanct: It may follow the form suggested in the statute or use a form substantially similar thereto. The attestation clause is designed to evince that the facts and circumstances of the confection and execution of the instrument conform to the statutory requirements. In construing the attestation clause of this type of will, this court has been most liberal in its determination of whether the clause complies in form and whether it evidences the requisites to supply validity to the instrument.

Succession of Morgan, 257 La. 380, 385, 242 So.2d 551, 552-3 (1970) (citations omitted).

In Succession of Brown, 458 So.2d 140, 143 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1984), the First Circuit succinctly summarized the three required elements of a valid attestation clause under La. R.S. 9:2442(B)(2), La Civ. Code, art. 1577(2)’s similarly-worded counterpart, as follows:

The attestation clause set forth in the statute.., requires the notary and witnesses to declare (1) the testator signed the will at its end and on each separate page, (2) the testator declared in the presence of the notary and witnesses that it (the instrument) was his will, and 3) in the presences of the testator and each other, they (the notary and witnesses) signed their names on a specified date.

(Emphasis in original.) In this case, none of these three requirements is fully met. As to the first requirement, although the third page of the will states it “was signed in our [the three witnesses’] sight and presence,” it does not mention that the will was signed on each separate page as specified in the sample attestation clause. 118Additionally, neither the will nor the affidavit contains a declaration that the notary viewed the will being signed (only the affidavit is notarized). Similarly, as to the second clause, although the witnesses signed a clause affirming that the testator “declared this instrument to be his/her Last Will and Testament,” the notary made no such declaration. Finally, as- to the third requirement, although the witnesses declare “to the undersigned authority... that each of us,- in the presence and hearing of the Testator ... and in the presence of each other, hereby signs this will, on the date of the instrument” (emphasis added), the witnesses do not mention signing the will in the presence of the notary.

Established appellate jurisprudence holds that an attestation clause is defective when the clause does not indicate the notary and witnesses signed in the presence of the testator and each other. As noted by the Court of Appeal in this case, the alleged “attestation clauses” at issue in this case are nearly identical to the ones found deficient in In re Succession of Seal, 10-0351 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/10/10), 2010 WL 3527597(unpublished), writ denied, 10-2294 (La. 1/28/11), 56 So.3d 964, in which the propounded testament was declared invalid.

In a similar case to the one at bar, In re Succession of Dunaway, 11-1747, 11-1748, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/2/12), 92 So.3d 555, 559-560 (emphasis added), Judge Welch wrote as organ for the First Circuit:

This [testament’s attestation] clause states that the testator signed the testament in the presence of the witnesses and declared the testament to be his last will and testament to the witnesses. It also states that the witnesses signed the testament in the presence of the notary. However, this clause does not state that the testator signed the will in the presence of the notary, nor does it state that the testator specifically declared the testament to be his last will and testament to the notary or to the notary in the presence of two witnesses. Therefore, this clause fails to meet the requirements of La. C.C. art 1577.
Furthermore, the “[subscribed, sworn, and acknowledged” clause appears to be simply a general notarization of the will] m rather than an attestation clause of the notary because the clause does not clearly state that the testator declared that the testament was his/her last will and testament in the presence of the notary or that the necessary signatures were signed in the presence of all persons, including the notary. As such, this clause is not in compliance with' La. C.C. art. 1577.

We agree with the First Circuit’s analysis, which emphasizes La. Civ.Code art. 1577(2)’s requirement that “[i]n the presences of the testator and each other, the notary and the witnesses shall sign the following declaration, or one substantially similar... ’’(emphasis added). It is presumed that every word, sentence, or provision in a law was intended to serve some useful purpose, that some effect is to be given to each such provision, and that no unnecessary words or provisions were employed. Guillory v. Pelican Real Estate, Inc., 2014-1539, 2104-1593, 2014-1624, p. 3 (La. 3/17/15), 165 So.3d 875, 877; Sultana Corp. v. Jewelers Mut. Ins. Co., 03-0360, p. 9 (La. 12/3/03), 860 So.2d 1112, 1119. If the legislature had desired that such generic notarization language suffice for purposes of the notarial will, it could have simply required notarial testaments to be formalized via authentic act.

Indeed, although Louisiana’s “notarial will”—previously called the “statutory will”—may have been originally inspired by American common law, its requirement of notarization is unique. Louisiana’s notarial testament also deviates from the requirements found in most of the rest of country in other ways, including requiring a signature on every page and requiring the witnesses expressly to sign an attestation clause indicating the testator declared the instrument signed to be hiflu will. In his brief, the applicant suggests that the testament at issue originated from a form found on the internet. This hypothesis is supported by the appearance of the word “COUNTY” in the affidavit. Although we are sympathetic to the fact that a testator could errantly use such a form in ignorance, to hold the propounded testament in substantial compliance with La. Civ.Code. art. 1577 would essentially negate any value to the distinct form requirements which our legislature has chosen to put in place. Further, the legislature has provided a significant benefit for testaments which comply with these unique requirements: the notarial testament does not need to be proved, and “[u]pon production of the testament, the court shall order it filed and executed and this order shall have the effect of probate.” La. C.C.P. art. 2891. Whether it is prudent to further reduce testamentary form requirements so as to more liberally encompass those commonly found in other states is a question of policy reserved to the purview of the legislature.

The standard announced in Guezu-raga and applied in Holbrook emphasizes liberal interpretation of testaments in order to maintain the validity of a will if at all possible, as long as it is in “substantial compliance” with the statute. In deciding what constitutes “substantial compliance,” Guezuraga and Holbrook state that the courts are to look to purpose of the formal requirements, ie., to guard against fraud. However, as discussed above, the facts of these cases presented only minor technical omissions. Such “slight departures” or “minor deviations”, where there is no indication or allegation of fraud, may support a finding of substantial compliance with the formal requirements of La. Civ.Code art. 1577. In contrast, | ^Louisiana courts have held statutory and notarial wills invalid when they contain material deviations from form requirements, even in the absence of any indication of fraud. Any language in previous jurisprudence which suggested otherwise is rejected.

Although the trial court stated orally that “there does not seem to be any indication of fraud,” we find the deviations from required testamentary form in this case are significant and material; thus, we agree with the lower,courts’ finding that the will did not substantially comply with La. Civ.Code art. 1577. The first two pages of the will are merely initialed rather than signed, and it is undisputed that no attestation clause indicates that the testator declared, in the presence of the notary, that the testament was his last will and testament, or that all persons signed in the presence of each other, including the notary. The applicant asks this court to reconstruct a valid attestation clause out of parts of three separate clauses, one of which is the ordinary notarial certification attached to any authentic act; however, we agree with the Court of Appeal that the clauses at issue did not substantially, comply with the codal requirements for an attestation clause. Likewise, the lower courts did not err in finding the testament invalid pursuant to La. Civ.Code. art. 1577.

In the applicant’s view, the First Circuit’s legal error requiring strict compliance in this case has been “metastasizing” throughout the jurisprudence. We believe, however, that it is the applicant’s suggested interpretation of law which would encourage metastization of legal error through the suggestion that) lfl generic, multistate templates, which are significantly more lenient than the form prescribed by our legislature, are nevertheless substantially compliant with the requirements of La. Civ.Code art. 1577.

In the alternative, the applicant seeks to have this court remand the case for further proceedings so the parties can put on evidence to demonstrate whether the will was in procedural compliance with La. Civ.Code art. 1577. However, as shown above, the testament itself failed to include the mandatory elements specified in La. Civ.Code art. 1577. While extrinsic evidence may be used to resolve ambiguity in a testament, extrinsic evidence cannot cure a testament which is materially defective on its face. The formalities prescribed for the execution of a testament must be observed or the testament is absolutely null. La. Civ.Code art. 1573. As the testament propounded in this case materially deviated from the requirements of La. Civ. Code art. 1577 as described in detail above, we find the lower courts correctly held that it is absolutely null.

DECREE

| i7For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.

JOHNSON, C.J.,

dissents and assigns reasons.

[J respectfully dissent from the majority’s finding that the testament is absolutely null.

This court has long held that courts must liberally construe and apply the statutes to maintain the validity of a will if at all possible, as long as it is in substantial compliance with La. C.C. art. 1577. See Succession of Morgan, 257 La. 380, 385, 242 So.2d 551, 552 (1970). More recently, this court explained that “courts need not strictly adhere to the formal requirements of the statutory will, to the extent of elevating form over function.” In re Succession of Holbrook, 13-1181 (La. 1/28/14), 144 So.3d 845, 851 (emphasis added). As we explained in Succession of Guezuraga, 512 So.2d 366, 368 (La. 1987):’

Where the departure from form has nothing whatsoever to do with fraud, ordinary common sense' dictates that such departure should not produce nullity. It was the intent of the legislature to reduce form to the minimum necessary to prevent fraud. It is submitted that in keeping with this intent, slight departures from form should be viewed in the light of their probable cause. If they indicate an increased likelihood that fraud may have been perpetrated they would be considered substantial and thus a cause to nullify the will. If not, they should be disregarded.

In this case, no fraud was indicated or pled, and it was, clearly the intent of Mr. Toney that his entire estate be left to Mr. Gerding. In my view, the attestation clause in Mr. Toney’s will substantially complies with the requirements of La. C.C. art. 1577.12 For these reasons, I would reverse the rulings of the lower courts and affirm the validity of Mr. Toney’s will.

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting.

hThe majority presents a well-researched and balanced opinion, which addresses many of the arguments opposed to the majority’s conclusion. However, while acknowledging there has been no hint of fraud regarding Mr. Toney’s testament, the majority ultimately elevates form over the substance of what Mr, Toney intended.

Although Mr. Toney’s testament would never be considered a textbook example of formal compliance for drafting wills, it bears mentioning that the testament clearly conveys Mr. Toney’s intent to leave his estate to his brother-in-law. Not only is it undisputed that the testament itself conveys that intent, but it is also undisputed that when his wife was alive, Mr. Toney executed a previous testament bequeathing the entirety of his estate to her unless she predeceased him. Furthermore, if his wife predeceased him, Mr. Toney directed that the entirety of his estate be given to her brother, Richie Gerding, who is the same brother-in-law named as the sole legatee in the testament at issue in this case.

For all the majority’s otherwise thorough legal exposition, without citation to any authority, the majority dismisses the possibility of “reconstructing] a valid attestation clause out of parts of three separate clauses, one of which is the ordinary notarial certification attached to any authentic act.” Succession of Toney, 16-1534, op. Rat 407-08 (La. 5/3/17). In the face of such clear indicators of the testator’s intent, piecing together the formal aspects to give effect to the substance of the testament is precisely the sort of exercise that the law favors. See, e.g„ La. C.C. art. 1611 (“The intent of the testator controls the interpretation of his testament.”) and La. C.C. art. 1612 (“A disposition should be interpreted in a sense in which it can have effect, rather than in one in which it can have none.”).

Inasmuch as the majority acknowledges that giving effect to Mr. Toney’s testament would require the court to “reconstruct a valid attestation clause,” the majority also acknowledges that this is not a situation in which formalities are wholly lacking. Succession of Toney, op. at 407-08. Therefore, the following longstanding principles, which the majority properly reproduces, but does not heed, directly apply:

There must be an attestation clause, or clause of declaration. However, its form is not sacrosanct: It may follow' the form suggested in the statute or use a form substantially similar, thereto. The attestation clause is designed to evince that the facts and circumstances of the confection and execution of the instrument conform to the statutory requirements. In construing the attestation clause of this type of will, this court has been most liberal in its determination of whether the clause complies in form and whether it evidences the requisites to supply validity to the instrument.

Succession of Toney, op. at 405 (quoting Succession of Morgan, 257 La. 380, 242 So.2d 551, 552 (1970).

| ¾As this court has previously recognized, in “adopting] the statutory will from the common law,” the legislature sought “to avoid ... rigid formal requirements.” Succession of Guezuraga, 512 So.2d 366, 368 (La. 1987). Indeed, the legislature has indicated that the “notarial testament” (formerly referred to in Guez-uraga as the “statutory will”) does not require exactitude, only that the testator, notary, and witnesses declare what is “substantially similar” to the attestation clause provided in the Civil Code. See La. C.C. art. 1577(2).

In the instant case, Mr. Toney’s own attestation clause indicates the testament was signed by Mr. Toney, who declared it to be his last will and testament in the presence of the witnesses, but fails to attest that Mr. Toney or the witnesses signed the will in the presence of the notary. Additionally, the signature of Mr. To-ney attests that he declares to the “undersigned authority” (ie., the notary) that he is signing, but does not attest that he is signing in the presence of the notary. However, the notary signed an attestation clause stating that the testament was subscribed, sworn, and acknowledged by Mr. Toney and by the three witnesses. When all the attestation clauses are considered together-an approach consistent with La. C.C. arts. 1611 and 1612 and with the liberal interpretative standard described by this court in Guezuraga—there was substantial compliance with the requirements of La. C.C. art. 1577.

Pointing to the provision in La. C.C. art. 1577(1) that “the testator . .■. shall sign his name at the end of the testament and on each other separate page,” the majority also finds Mr. Toney’s initials on the first two pages of the testament are insufficient, giving no effect to the witnesses’ notarized attestation that Mr. Toney signed thej4 testament. With scant analysis, the majority effectively overrules two appellate court decisions, Succession of Squires, 93-1589 (La.App. 3 Cm. 6/1/94), 640 So.2d 813, and Succession of Armstrong, 93-2385 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/28/94), 636 So.2d 1109. In both Squires and Armstrong, the testator fully signed the last page of a testament, but placed initials on the first page. The Squires court found “these are minor departures from [sic] and have nothing to do with any attempted fraud. Common sense dictates that they should not nullify the clear intent of the testator.” Squires, 93-1589 at 5, 640 So.2d at 815. Similarly, the Armstrong court upheld the testament, explaining that “[t]here is little formality required for signatures which come in all shapes and sizes and are often illegible.” Armstrong, 93-2385 at 5, 636 So.2d at 1111.

I find the principles just quoted from Squires and Armstrong to be compelling, especially in light of the legislature’s movement away from the numerous formalistic wills previously recognized by Louisiana law. See La. C.C. art. 1574, revision cmt. (a) (“This Article changes the law by suppressing the ‘public and private nuncupa-tive’ and ‘mystic’ testaments found in the Civil Code of 1870.”). In over 20 years since they were penned, the Squires and Armstrong opinions have not been criticized in any reported decision in the jurisprudence. These opinions should not be so lightly cast aside, as the majority now does. Neither should no effect be given to the) 5 witnesses’ sworn testimony—recorded on the testament by the notary-that it was Mr. Toney who signed all pages of the testament. See La. R.S. 35:3 (“Oaths and acknowledgments, in all cases, may be taken or made by or before any notary public duly appointed and qualified in this state.”); see also In re Succession of Holbrook, 13-1181, p. 11 (La. 1/28/14), 144 So.3d 845, 853 (quoting Succession of Armstrong, 636 So.2d at 1111 (“Under Louisiana law, there is a presumption in favor of the validity of testaments in general and proof of the nonobservance of formalities must be exceptionally compelling to rebut that presumption.”).

In conclusion, Mr. Toney’s intent to donate his estate to his brother-in-law, Richie Gerding, is unrefuted. There has been no allegation of fraud regarding the drafting or the execution of his testament. Even so, under the majority’s ruling, the result for Mr. Toney’s estate will be the same as if fraud had been actually proven, as this testament will be annulled and, it appears, his estate will lapse into intestacy. This result not only defeats Mr. Toney’s intent, but it runs contrary to the substantial compliance standard embodied in La. C.C. art. 1577, a standard which has previously been recognized by this court’s jurisprudence. Thus, I respectfully dissent.

CRICHTON, J.,

additionally concurs and assigns reasons:

hi fully agree with the majority’s well-reasoned and thoughtful conclusion in this case. The analysis recognizes the importance of considering a testator’s intent, C.C. art. 1611, but it also makes clear that upholding the validity of this particular testament on the facts of this case would chip away at the foundations of our Civil Code’s requirements. See C.C. art. 1577.

I write separately to express my concern about the proliferation of widely available and generic legal templates, which may substantially deviate from form requirements set forth in the Civil Code. The obligation to meet these requirements is critical, because the Civil Code is “the primary source of law, and precedent serves merely as an example of a prior judge’s interpretation and application of legislated law.” James L. Dennis, Interpretation and Application of the Civil Code and the Evaluation of Judicial Precedent, 54 La. L. Rev. 1 (1993). The legislature, of course, can make changes to those form requirements, but it is up to this Court to uphold the law as written and avoid what the majority aptly describes as the “metas-tization” of legal error in interpreting Civil Code articles.

      . Richie Glenn Gerding is the brother of Jeannette Toney. As the proponent of the will, Gerding alleges that Ronnie Toney executed a similar will on the same day in 1993. However, a copy of this alleged will is not contained in the record before us, nor is any other evidence of the alleged will.

      . The number "3” is handwritten in a blank provided and appears to have been written over the number "4."

      . Notably, Guezuraga pertained to a statutory will formulated under La. R.S. 9:2442. Although La. R.S. 9:2442 mayhave been created to "avoid the rigid formal requirements of the Louisiana Civil Code,” current La. Civ. Code. art. 1577 is obviously a part of the Louisiana Civil Code, which also contains La. Civ.Code art. 1573, providing that testaments which do not follow the prescribed formalities are absolutely null. As noted by Justice Marcus in his dissent in Evans v. Evans, 410 So.2d 729, 733 (La. 1982), the predecessor article to La. Civ.Code. art. 1573 in that case, then La. Civ.Code art. 1595 (which provided "[t]he formalities, to which testaments are subject by the provisions of the present section must be observed, otherwise the testaments are null and void”) arguably did not apply to La. R.S. 9:2442, as this statute was not located in the Civil Code. Thus, the court in Guezuraga was not constrained by this co-dal provision in its interpretation of La. R.S. 9:2442.

      . Guezuraga, 512 So.2d at 368 included the following quotation from Casenote, Donations—Imperfect Compliance with the Formal Requirements of the Statutory Will, 15 Loy. L. Rev. 362, 371 (1968-69):
      Where the departure from form has nothing whatsoever to do with fraud, ordinary common sense dictates that such departure should not produce nullity. It was the intent of the legislature to reduce form to the minimum necessary to prevent fraud. It is submitted that in keeping with this intent, slight departures from form should be viewed in the light of their probable cause. If they indicate an increased likelihood that fraud may have been perpetrated they would be considered substantial and thus a cause to nullify the will. If not, they should be disregarded. Thus testators and estate planners will have the security that the legislature intended to give them.
      The above language comes from the conclusion section of a law review case note which summarized contemporary appellate case law at the time the note was written in 1969, and it is intended to suggest a guideline for future interpretation of "statutory wills” under La. R.S. 9:2442 in light of preceding case law. Although it is true that the "statutory will” was originally formulated to create a minimum form necessary to protect against fraud, those minimum requirements must still be met. Additionally, we note that although this form was previously called the “statutory will,” it has since been renamed as the "notarial will” and moved into the Civil Code. Thus, we must apply the principles of interpretation found in the Civil Code to the contents of La. Civ.Code art. 1577 and related articles.

      . For example, the applicant cites Succession of Squires, 93-1589 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/94), 640 So.2d 813, writ denied, 94-1660 (La. 9/16/94), 642 So.2d 199. In that case, the testator only initialed the first page of his will, but fully signed the final page, which contained the following attestation clause:
      We hereby declare that GEORGE HEBERT SQUIRES signed the foregoing instrument in our presence and in the presence of-each other,- declaring to us that the foregoing instrument is his Last Will .and Testament, and he requests us to sign the same as subscribing witnesses thereto which we now do in the presence of each other and of the Testator on this 23rd day of September, 199.0.
      Analyzing this attestation clause, the Third Circuit cited to Guezuraga and noted that, like in Guezurqga, the opponents of the will made no allegation of fraud, Also, in Squires, the notary and one of the witnesses testified they saw the testator initial the first page and sign his name to the last two pages. Without any evidence to contradict this testimony, the Third Circuit found that the testator clearly intended the document to be his Last Will and Testament. The Third Circuit concluded:
      Counsel have not cited, nor do we find any case involving either of the two precise issues presented, i.e, (1) initials, instead of signing, or (2) failure of the attestation clause to state that the notary and witnesses saw the testator sign each page. However, under the rule quoted above from Guezura-ga, we find these, are minor departures from .[sic] and have nothing to do with any attempted fraud. Common sense dictates that they should not nullify the clear intent of the testator.

        Succession of Squires, 640 So.2d at 815.
      In support, the applicant also cites Succession of Armstrong, 93-2385, p. 1 (La.App. 4. Cir. 4/28/94), 636 So.2d 1109, 1110 writ denied, 94-1370 (La. 9/16/94), 642 So.2d 196, in which the Fourth Circuit held:
      Although the decedent placed only his initials on the bottom of page one as opposed to a more formal signature, his initials suffice for his signature, See Succession of Butler, 152 So.2d 239 (La.App. 4th Cir,), writ refused, 244 La. 668, 153 So.2d 882 (La. 1963). There is little formality required for signatures which come in all shapes and sizes' and are often illegible.

      . See also, In re Succession of Ballex, 12-1571 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/31/13), 2013 WL 3961203 (not designated for publication); Succession of Smith, 49,118 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/13/14), 146 So.3d 917; and Matter of Succession of Biscamp, 16-673 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/17), 211 So.3d 472. But see, Succession of Armstrong, 636 So.2d 1109; In re Succession of Hebert, 2012-281 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/12), 101 So.3d 131.

      . See Ronald J. Scalise, Jr., Testamentary Formalities in the United States of America, in Comparative Succession Law, Volume One, p.369, fn. 103 (Reid, Waal and Zimmerman, eds.).

      . Id. at p.364, fn. 62; pp. 367-8.

      . See, e.g., Succession of Holbrook, 144 So.3d at 852 ("However, courts have also held the attestation clause itself must only be "substantially similar” to the attestation clause in Art. 1577, such that minor deviations in form with regard to the date in the attestation clause do not render the testament invalid in the absence of any indication of fraud.”(citations omitted)); Succession of Guezuraga, 512 So.2d at 368 ("It is submitted that in keeping with this intent, slight departures from form should be viewed in the light of their probable cause...").

      . See, e.g., In re Hendricks, 2008-1914 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/23/09), 28 So.3d 1057, 1060, writ not considered, 2010-0480 (La. 3/26/10), 29 So.3d 1256; Succession of Slay, 99-1753, p. 6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/17/00), 764 So.2d 102, writ denied, 00-2481 (La. 11/13/00), 774 So.2d 144; and Evans v. Evans, 410 So.2d 729, 733 (La. 1982) ("The fact that there is no fraud, or even suggestion or intimation of it, will not justify the courts in departing from the codal requirements, even to bring about justice in the particular instance, since any material relaxation of the codal rule will open up a fruitful field for fraud, substitution, and imposition.” (quoting Succession of Roussel, 373 So.2d 155, 157 (La. 1979))).

      . See, e.g. Succession of Holloway , 531 So.2d 431, 434 (La. 1988); Succession of Boyd, 306 So.2d 687, 689 (La. 1975).

      . In its analytical approach, the majority's opinion appears to be oriented toward piecing together individual formal errors to invalidate the testament, rather than oriented. toward piecing together the individual instances of formal compliance to uphold the testator’s intent. The majority’s glass-half-empty orientation is contrary not only to the principles just cited from the law of testaments, but the approach is contrary to this court's view in other areas of the law. For example, in criminal law, this court has recently upheld a conviction notwithstanding tire claim of cumulative error, remarking: “Given [defendant's] failure to show prejudice as a result of any of the claimed errors, he cannot show that their combined effect entitles him to relief. See, e.g., Mullen v. Blackburn, 808 F.2d 1143, 1147 (5th Cir.1987) (rejecting cumulative error claim, finding that 'twenty times zero equals zero’).” State v. Blank, 16-0213, p. 14 (La. 5/13/16), 192 So.3d 93, 103.

      . See La. C.C. art. 1574, revision cmt. (a) (“The so-called statutory testament is revised and retained by this Article, to be called the notarial testament.”).

      . As reflected in La. C.C. art. 1574 itself, in place of the five forms of testaments previously recognized, “[tjhere are two forms of testaments: olographic and notarial."

      . The rulings in Squires and Armstrong in favor of upholding testaments against challenges based on the use of the testator’s initials are consistent with the general principle of upholding the testator’s intent. Those rulings are also consistent with another principle from the law of registry, which, by analogy, offers a pointed lesson regarding the use of initials on a written instrument when the full name appears elsewhere in the instrument:
      A recorded instrument is effective with respect to a third person if the name of a party is not so indefinite, incomplete, or erroneous as to be misleading and the instrument as a whole reasonably alerts a person examining the records that the instrument may be that of the party. [Emphasis added.]
      La. C.C. art. 3353 (governing the effect of indefinite or incomplete name).