State v. Bunch

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Bunch

695 So. 2d 1341, 1997 La. LEXIS 1971, 1997 WL 351794

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 20, 1997

DocketNo. 96-KP-2761

StatusPublished

This text of 695 So. 2d 1341 (State v. Bunch) 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 v. Bunch, 695 So. 2d 1341, 1997 La. LEXIS 1971, 1997 WL 351794 (La. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiffs); applying for supervisor and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “C”, No. 286-606.

Writ granted; conviction and sentence reinstated. The district court erred in granting relief on the basis of the newly discovered evidence. First, the evidence would not warrant the granting of a new trial even if the standard of La.C.Cr.P.- art. 851(3) applied. See State v. Chapman, 436 So.2d 451, 455 (La.1983); State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729, 736 (La.1984); State v. Clayton, 427 So.2d 827, 833 (La.1982); cf. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 403-04, 113 S.Ct. 853, 862-63, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993). Second, Bunch raised identical issues in an earlier application for post-conviction relief which this Court denied. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D); State ex rel. Bunch v. Whitley, 93-0193 (La. 11/29/94), 646 So.2d 395.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.

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

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiffs); applying for supervisor and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “C”, No. 286-606.

Writ granted; conviction and sentence reinstated. The district court erred in granting relief on the basis of the newly discovered evidence. First, the evidence would not warrant the granting of a new trial even if the standard of La.C.Cr.P.- art. 851(3) applied. See State v. Chapman, 436 So.2d 451, 455 (La.1983); State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729, 736 (La.1984); State v. Clayton, 427 So.2d 827, 833 (La.1982); cf. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 403-04, 113 S.Ct. 853, 862-63, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993). Second, Bunch raised identical issues in an earlier application for post-conviction relief which this Court denied. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D); State ex rel. Bunch v. Whitley, 93-0193 (La. 11/29/94), 646 So.2d 395.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 So. 2d 1341, 1997 La. LEXIS 1971, 1997 WL 351794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bunch-la-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack