State v. Frank

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Frank

62 So. 3d 99, 2011 La. LEXIS 1205

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 25, 2011

DocketNo. 2010-KP-0265

StatusPublished

This text of 62 So. 3d 99 (State v. Frank) 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. Frank, 62 So. 3d 99, 2011 La. LEXIS 1205 (La. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Frank, Antoinette R.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 375-992.

Writ granted. The ruling of the trial court denying relator’s motion to recuse Judge Frank Marullo is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Given Judge White’s subsequent order recusing herself from the proceedings both in this case and that of codefendant Rogers Lacaze, and the subsequent order of Judge Van Davis re-cusing Judge Marullo from post-conviction proceedings in Lacaze’s case, the case is remanded to the criminal district court to reconsider the issue of whether recusal of Judge Marullo is likewise required in relator’s case. See e.g., State v. Witte, 595 So.2d 1149, 1156 (La.1992) (“[I]f a judge is to take the stand as a witness, regardless of the nature or materiality of his testimony, he should be recused from presiding at the trial or hearing.”).

KNOLL, J., would deny.

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

In re Frank, Antoinette R.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 375-992.

Writ granted. The ruling of the trial court denying relator’s motion to recuse Judge Frank Marullo is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Given Judge White’s subsequent order recusing herself from the proceedings both in this case and that of codefendant Rogers Lacaze, and the subsequent order of Judge Van Davis re-cusing Judge Marullo from post-conviction proceedings in Lacaze’s case, the case is remanded to the criminal district court to reconsider the issue of whether recusal of Judge Marullo is likewise required in relator’s case. See e.g., State v. Witte, 595 So.2d 1149, 1156 (La.1992) (“[I]f a judge is to take the stand as a witness, regardless of the nature or materiality of his testimony, he should be recused from presiding at the trial or hearing.”).

KNOLL, J., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 So. 3d 99, 2011 La. LEXIS 1205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-frank-la-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack