State ex rel. A.D.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. A.D.

76 So. 3d 435, 2011 La. LEXIS 3042, 2011 WL 6957610

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 23, 2011

DocketNo. 2011-CK-1197

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 So. 3d 435 (State ex rel. A.D.) 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

State ex rel. A.D., 76 So. 3d 435, 2011 La. LEXIS 3042, 2011 WL 6957610 (La. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In re State of Louisiana; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 2011-020-05DQ-F; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0300.

Writ granted. A defendant has no right to an unredacted police report containing witnesses’ identifying information unless he demonstrates a “distinctive reason why fundamental fairness dictates discovery of the names of these witnesses.” State v. Weathersby, 09-2407 (La.3/12/10), 29 So.3d 499, 501. No such showing has been made in the present case. In light of the State’s provision of this witness list and the State’s light redaction of the police narrative, and in the absence of any peculiar circumstances requiring disclosure, we find that there is no basis to order the provision of the unredacted document or to conduct an in camera hearing. The judgments of the lower courts are reversed, vacated, and set aside, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings.

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

In re State of Louisiana; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 2011-020-05DQ-F; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0300.

Writ granted. A defendant has no right to an unredacted police report containing witnesses’ identifying information unless he demonstrates a “distinctive reason why fundamental fairness dictates discovery of the names of these witnesses.” State v. Weathersby, 09-2407 (La.3/12/10), 29 So.3d 499, 501. No such showing has been made in the present case. In light of the State’s provision of this witness list and the State’s light redaction of the police narrative, and in the absence of any peculiar circumstances requiring disclosure, we find that there is no basis to order the provision of the unredacted document or to conduct an in camera hearing. The judgments of the lower courts are reversed, vacated, and set aside, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 So. 3d 435, 2011 La. LEXIS 3042, 2011 WL 6957610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-ad-la-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack