State v. Dunn

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Dunn

847 So. 2d 1183, 2003 La. LEXIS 1342, 2003 WL 21040176

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 9, 2003

DocketNo. 2003-KP-0821

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 847 So. 2d 1183 (State v. Dunn) 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. Dunn, 847 So. 2d 1183, 2003 La. LEXIS 1342, 2003 WL 21040176 (La. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

|.PER CURIAM.

Writ granted; case remanded. The determination of whether a defendant sentenced to death has shown reasonable grounds to put at issue the fact of mental retardation ordinarily rests in the first instance with the trial court. State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 27 (La.11/1/02), 831 So.2d 835, 857. However, on direct appeal of relator’s conviction and sentence we remanded the case for the determination of relator’s mental status because the uncon-tradicted testimony of Dr. Marc Zimmerman provided “reasonable ground to doubt whether defendant is mentally retarded.” [1184]*1184State v. Dunn, 01-1635, p. 30 (La.11/1/02), 831 So.2d 862, 887. That finding by this Court obviates the need for relator to satisfy this threshold requirement again in the district court. Accordingly, the district court is ordered to hold a hearing at which the court will take testimony and other evidence in accord with the procedures set out in Dunn and Williams and determine whether relator is mentally retarded and so may not be executed. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Because this Court has | ¡retained jurisdiction over this case for review of the penalty phase of relator’s trial, pending the outcome of the proceedings in the district court, Dunn, 01-1635 at 31, 831 So.2d at 887-88, either party may appeal to this Court from an adverse ruling by the district court on the question of whether relator is mentally retarded and so exempt from capital punishment.

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

|.PER CURIAM.

Writ granted; case remanded. The determination of whether a defendant sentenced to death has shown reasonable grounds to put at issue the fact of mental retardation ordinarily rests in the first instance with the trial court. State v. Williams, 01-1650, p. 27 (La.11/1/02), 831 So.2d 835, 857. However, on direct appeal of relator’s conviction and sentence we remanded the case for the determination of relator’s mental status because the uncon-tradicted testimony of Dr. Marc Zimmerman provided “reasonable ground to doubt whether defendant is mentally retarded.” [1184]*1184State v. Dunn, 01-1635, p. 30 (La.11/1/02), 831 So.2d 862, 887. That finding by this Court obviates the need for relator to satisfy this threshold requirement again in the district court. Accordingly, the district court is ordered to hold a hearing at which the court will take testimony and other evidence in accord with the procedures set out in Dunn and Williams and determine whether relator is mentally retarded and so may not be executed. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Because this Court has | ¡retained jurisdiction over this case for review of the penalty phase of relator’s trial, pending the outcome of the proceedings in the district court, Dunn, 01-1635 at 31, 831 So.2d at 887-88, either party may appeal to this Court from an adverse ruling by the district court on the question of whether relator is mentally retarded and so exempt from capital punishment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

847 So. 2d 1183, 2003 La. LEXIS 1342, 2003 WL 21040176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dunn-la-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack