State v. Hilliard

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Hilliard

687 So. 2d 369, 1997 WL 58834

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 7, 1997

DocketNo. 96-KP-2457

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 687 So. 2d 369 (State v. Hilliard) 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. Hilliard, 687 So. 2d 369, 1997 WL 58834 (La. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted; conviction and sentence reinstated. The district court erred in considering relator’s claim based on claimed conflict between the trial testimony of Detective Artigue and the Motion for New Trial hearing testimony of Natha Jefferson because the parties fully litigated that claim on appeal and the interests of justice do not require the court to revisit it. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A); State v. Hilliard, 412 So.2d 106 (La.1982). The district court also erred in finding that the undisclosed information contained in the initial police report rose to a level of materiality warranting reversal under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and its progeny. See, e.g., State v. Marshall, 81-3115, p. 16 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 819 (“Evidence is material [and reversal warranted] only if it is reasonably probable that the result of the proceeding would have been different had the evidence been disclosed to the defense. A reasonable probability is one which is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”).

CALOGERO, C.J., and JOHNSON, would grant and docket. LEMMON, J., not on panel.

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

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted; conviction and sentence reinstated. The district court erred in considering relator’s claim based on claimed conflict between the trial testimony of Detective Artigue and the Motion for New Trial hearing testimony of Natha Jefferson because the parties fully litigated that claim on appeal and the interests of justice do not require the court to revisit it. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A); State v. Hilliard, 412 So.2d 106 (La.1982). The district court also erred in finding that the undisclosed information contained in the initial police report rose to a level of materiality warranting reversal under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and its progeny. See, e.g., State v. Marshall, 81-3115, p. 16 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 819 (“Evidence is material [and reversal warranted] only if it is reasonably probable that the result of the proceeding would have been different had the evidence been disclosed to the defense. A reasonable probability is one which is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”).

CALOGERO, C.J., and JOHNSON, would grant and docket. LEMMON, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 369, 1997 WL 58834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hilliard-la-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack