State Ex Rel. Barbee v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State Ex Rel. Barbee v. State

57 So. 3d 318, 2011 La. LEXIS 337

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 4, 2011

Docket2010-KH-0275

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 57 So. 3d 318 (State Ex Rel. Barbee v. State) 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. Barbee v. State, 57 So. 3d 318, 2011 La. LEXIS 337 (La. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Barbee, James J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 09-179,084; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 1888.

Writ granted in part. The district court erred in finding that the district attorney’s file relating to relator’s case could not support a claim cognizable under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 because the time limitations within in which to file had lapsed. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Because such documents might support such an application under an exception to the limitations period, see, e.g., La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1), and given that only a specific and unequivocal law can limit the fundamental right of access to public records, see, e.g., Capital City Press v. Metro. Council, 96-1979, p. 4-5 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 562, 564, relator still has the right of access to the records sought under the applicable laws, which contain no reference to La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. See R.S. 44:31.1; see also La. Const. art. XII, section 3; R.S. 44:31; State ex rel. Leonard v. State, 96-1889 (La.6/13/97), 695 So.2d 1325. Therefore, the St. Mary Parish District Attorney’s Office is ordered to provide relator with an estimate of the costs of reproducing the public records relator has requested and to which he is entitled. In *319 all other respects, the application is denied.

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

In re Barbee, James J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 09-179,084; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 1888.

Writ granted in part. The district court erred in finding that the district attorney’s file relating to relator’s case could not support a claim cognizable under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 because the time limitations within in which to file had lapsed. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Because such documents might support such an application under an exception to the limitations period, see, e.g., La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1), and given that only a specific and unequivocal law can limit the fundamental right of access to public records, see, e.g., Capital City Press v. Metro. Council, 96-1979, p. 4-5 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 562, 564, relator still has the right of access to the records sought under the applicable laws, which contain no reference to La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. See R.S. 44:31.1; see also La. Const. art. XII, section 3; R.S. 44:31; State ex rel. Leonard v. State, 96-1889 (La.6/13/97), 695 So.2d 1325. Therefore, the St. Mary Parish District Attorney’s Office is ordered to provide relator with an estimate of the costs of reproducing the public records relator has requested and to which he is entitled. In *319 all other respects, the application is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 So. 3d 318, 2011 La. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-barbee-v-state-la-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack