State v. Golden

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Golden

650 So. 2d 237, 1995 La. LEXIS 619, 1995 WL 71058

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 17, 1995

DocketNo. 95-KK-0288

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 650 So. 2d 237 (State v. Golden) 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. Golden, 650 So. 2d 237, 1995 La. LEXIS 619, 1995 WL 71058 (La. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We hereby grant the State of Louisiana’s writ application, vacate the ruling of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this order. Upon remand, the trial court is to conduct an in camera interview of the prospective witnesses in order to determine whether they possess or have access to any evidence which may be exculpatory, including information which may be relevant to impeach the credibility of the police officers who solicited their services. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). If the trial court finds that the prospective witnesses possess information material to the issue of the defendant’s innocence, the trial court is to order the State to make these individuals available to the defendants. If, however, after this interview the trial court determines that these prospective witnesses possess no such information, the trial court is directed to deny the defendant’s discovery motion. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 723.

WRIT GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.

DENNIS, J., not on panel.

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

PER CURIAM.

We hereby grant the State of Louisiana’s writ application, vacate the ruling of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this order. Upon remand, the trial court is to conduct an in camera interview of the prospective witnesses in order to determine whether they possess or have access to any evidence which may be exculpatory, including information which may be relevant to impeach the credibility of the police officers who solicited their services. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). If the trial court finds that the prospective witnesses possess information material to the issue of the defendant’s innocence, the trial court is to order the State to make these individuals available to the defendants. If, however, after this interview the trial court determines that these prospective witnesses possess no such information, the trial court is directed to deny the defendant’s discovery motion. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 723.

WRIT GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.

DENNIS, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 So. 2d 237, 1995 La. LEXIS 619, 1995 WL 71058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-golden-la-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack