State ex rel. Anderson v. Clerk of Court

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Anderson v. Clerk of Court

648 So. 2d 909, 1995 La. LEXIS 70, 1995 WL 6270

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided January 6, 1995·No. No. 94-KH-1381·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In re Anderson, Rudolph; — Plaintiffs); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans Criminal District Court Div. “B” No. 303 — 669; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 94KW-0429.

Granted. The district court is ordered to provide relator with a copy of the charging document in his case. Although as a general matter incarcerated indigents must demonstrate a particularized need for a court document before receiving a copy of it free of charge, see, e.g., Stewart v. Lombard, 94-0040 (La. 6/3/94), 637 So.2d 496; cf. United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 325, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 2091, 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976); State ex rel. Nash v. State, 604 So.2d 1054 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992); LSA — R.S. 44:32(C)(l)(a), the bill of information or grand jury indictment charging them with committing a crime form an exception to that rule. La.C.Cr.P. art. 498; see, e.g., State ex rel. Foret v. State, 617 So.2d 900 (La.1993); State v. Martin, 516 So.2d 124 (La.1987). As to the other documents he requests, relator’s application is denied. He has not demonstrated the required particularized need. [910]*910See MacCollum, 426 U.S. at 329, 96 S.Ct. at 2093 (Blaekmun, J., concurring).

LEMMON, J., not on panel.

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

In re Anderson, Rudolph; — Plaintiffs); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans Criminal District Court Div. “B” No. 303 — 669; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 94KW-0429.

Granted. The district court is ordered to provide relator with a copy of the charging document in his case. Although as a general matter incarcerated indigents must demonstrate a particularized need for a court document before receiving a copy of it free of charge, see, e.g., Stewart v. Lombard, 94-0040 (La. 6/3/94), 637 So.2d 496; cf. United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 325, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 2091, 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976); State ex rel. Nash v. State, 604 So.2d 1054 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992); LSA — R.S. 44:32(C)(l)(a), the bill of information or grand jury indictment charging them with committing a crime form an exception to that rule. La.C.Cr.P. art. 498; see, e.g., State ex rel. Foret v. State, 617 So.2d 900 (La.1993); State v. Martin, 516 So.2d 124 (La.1987). As to the other documents he requests, relator’s application is denied. He has not demonstrated the required particularized need. [910]*910See MacCollum, 426 U.S. at 329, 96 S.Ct. at 2093 (Blaekmun, J., concurring).

LEMMON, J., not on panel.

State ex rel. Anderson v. Clerk of Court, 648 So. 2d 909, 1995 La. LEXIS 70, 1995 WL 6270 (La. 1995).

Pincite

648 So. 2d 909 (State ex rel. Anderson v. Clerk of Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related