State Of Louisiana v. Albert Franklin

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2019 KW 0645

VERSUS

ALBERT FRANKLIN AUGUST 12, 2019

In Re: Albert Franklin, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 04- 18- 0404.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McDONALD, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

WRIT DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress shall be held only when the defendant alleges facts that would require the granting of

relief. La. Code Crim. P. art. 703( E)( 1). Vague and general

legal conclusions, urged in form motions, are inadequate to require the holding of such a hearing. State v. Wilson, 2016- 0912 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 22/ 17), 2017 WL 716085, at * 5. However, the record does not support a finding of contempt of

court by relator' s attorneys. The trial court' s ruling finding relator' s attorneys in contempt of court is reversed.

JMM WRC

Guidry, J., dissents in part and would grant the writ

application. Based on the record before us, I find a hearing on the motion to suppress was held and the district court

impermissibly shifted the burden of proof by requiring the defendant to present evidence. It is well- settled that at a

hearing on a defendant' s motion to suppress a confession or

inculpatory statement, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the free and voluntary nature of the confession or statement and, therefore, it is obliged to call

its witnesses first and go forward with its proof to meet its burden. State v. Smith, 409 So. 2d 271, 272 ( La. 1982). See La. Code Crim. P. art. 703( D).

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT