Gonzalez v. Montelongo

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Gonzalez v. Montelongo

259 So. 3d 1015

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 7, 2019

DocketNo. 2019-CC-32

StatusPublished

This text of 259 So. 3d 1015 (Gonzalez v. Montelongo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gonzalez v. Montelongo, 259 So. 3d 1015 (La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Hughes, J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989), as well as the opinions of this court in Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp. , 94-0952 (La. 11/30/94), 646 So.2d 318, and Kyle v. City of New Orleans , 353 So.2d 969 (La. 1977) are controlling, without qualification. The issue in this case is not plaintiff's level of intoxication, but what happened at the time of the incident.

According to this court's order, if plaintiff does not testify about her "level of intoxication," the defense may not open this door by asking leading questions on cross examination.

The officer's observations and the results of the field sobriety test are admissible. But the uncertified intoxilyzer results from two hours later cannot be used to prejudice the plaintiff in the eyes of the jury under the guise of impeaching her credibility on what happened at the time of the incident.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hughes, J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989), as well as the opinions of this court in Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp. , 94-0952 (La. 11/30/94), 646 So.2d 318, and Kyle v. City of New Orleans , 353 So.2d 969 (La. 1977) are controlling, without qualification. The issue in this case is not plaintiff's level of intoxication, but what happened at the time of the incident.

According to this court's order, if plaintiff does not testify about her "level of intoxication," the defense may not open this door by asking leading questions on cross examination.

The officer's observations and the results of the field sobriety test are admissible. But the uncertified intoxilyzer results from two hours later cannot be used to prejudice the plaintiff in the eyes of the jury under the guise of impeaching her credibility on what happened at the time of the incident.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 So. 3d 1015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-montelongo-la-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack