State v. Jefferson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Jefferson

6 So. 3d 757, 2009 La. LEXIS 176, 2009 WL 1201530

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 2, 2009

Docket2009-KK-0740

StatusPublished

This text of 6 So. 3d 757 (State v. Jefferson) 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. Jefferson, 6 So. 3d 757, 2009 La. LEXIS 176, 2009 WL 1201530 (La. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial *758 Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. 1, No. M498900; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0367.

Granted. The Commissioner’s order allowing defendant to review the police report is Reversed. Defendant has not been indicted or charged by bill of information with an offense, thus any request for production of the police report is premature. La.C.Cr.P. art. 729.6. Furthermore, the record does not support a finding that the Detective reviewed the report to refresh her memory while testifying, thus defendant is not entitled to production of the report pursuant to La.C.E. art. 612(B). See also: State v. Payton, 294 So.2d 211 (La.1974); State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729 (La.1984).

KNOLL, J., would deny.

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

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial *758 Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. 1, No. M498900; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0367.

Granted. The Commissioner’s order allowing defendant to review the police report is Reversed. Defendant has not been indicted or charged by bill of information with an offense, thus any request for production of the police report is premature. La.C.Cr.P. art. 729.6. Furthermore, the record does not support a finding that the Detective reviewed the report to refresh her memory while testifying, thus defendant is not entitled to production of the report pursuant to La.C.E. art. 612(B). See also: State v. Payton, 294 So.2d 211 (La.1974); State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729 (La.1984).

KNOLL, J., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 So. 3d 757, 2009 La. LEXIS 176, 2009 WL 1201530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jefferson-la-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack