State v. Higgins

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Higgins

821 So. 2d 1281, 2002 La. LEXIS 1534, 2002 WL 960023

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 6, 2002

DocketNo. 2002-KK-1241

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 821 So. 2d 1281 (State v. Higgins) 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. Higgins, 821 So. 2d 1281, 2002 La. LEXIS 1534, 2002 WL 960023 (La. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Higgins, Shawn;-Defendant: Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 00-4999; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-K-442.

Denied in part; granted in part with order.

Defendant’s request that this court quash the indictment is DENIED. Relative to defendant’s request for Brady and Giglio evidence:

The court is ordered to inform the defendant prior to trial whether the grand jury transcripts reviewed via in camera inspection reveal any evidence favorable to the accused which is material to guilt or innocence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and/or Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). If the court expresses that no such evidence is contained in the grand jury transcripts, then there is no impediment to the trial’s commencement, but the trial court must preserve the testimony reviewed in camera for appellate review.

If the trial court expresses that the grand jury transcripts contain evidence favorable to the accused which is material to guilt or innocence under Brady and/or Giglio, then that evidence should be made available to the defendant pursuant to State v. Trosclair, 443 So.2d 1098, 1103 (La.1983) and State v. Peters, 406 So.2d 189 (La.1981).

TRAYLOR, J., would deny the writ application.

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

In re Higgins, Shawn;-Defendant: Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 00-4999; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-K-442.

Denied in part; granted in part with order.

Defendant’s request that this court quash the indictment is DENIED. Relative to defendant’s request for Brady and Giglio evidence:

The court is ordered to inform the defendant prior to trial whether the grand jury transcripts reviewed via in camera inspection reveal any evidence favorable to the accused which is material to guilt or innocence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and/or Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). If the court expresses that no such evidence is contained in the grand jury transcripts, then there is no impediment to the trial’s commencement, but the trial court must preserve the testimony reviewed in camera for appellate review.

If the trial court expresses that the grand jury transcripts contain evidence favorable to the accused which is material to guilt or innocence under Brady and/or Giglio, then that evidence should be made available to the defendant pursuant to State v. Trosclair, 443 So.2d 1098, 1103 (La.1983) and State v. Peters, 406 So.2d 189 (La.1981).

TRAYLOR, J., would deny the writ application.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

821 So. 2d 1281, 2002 La. LEXIS 1534, 2002 WL 960023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-higgins-la-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack