State v. King

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. King

266 So. 3d 892

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 25, 2019

DocketNo. 2019-KK-0175

StatusPublished

This text of 266 So. 3d 892 (State v. King) 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. King, 266 So. 3d 892 (La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

GUIDRY, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons:

For reasons assigned by Judge Dysart's dissent, I would grant the writ application of the State of Louisiana. Specifically, I agree with Judge Dysart's finding that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the disclosure of the un-redacted *893video from which the C.I.'s identity would be ascertainable. State v. King, 19-0018 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/10/19) (unpublished). (Dysart, J., dissenting). In my view, such disclosure would violate La. C.E. art. 514(A) as the defendant has failed to prove that "interest of the government in preventing disclosure is substantially outweighed by exceptional circumstances such that the informer's testimony is essential to the preparation of the defense or to a fair determination on the issue of guilt or innocence." La. C.E. art. 514(C).

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

GUIDRY, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons:

For reasons assigned by Judge Dysart's dissent, I would grant the writ application of the State of Louisiana. Specifically, I agree with Judge Dysart's finding that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the disclosure of the un-redacted *893video from which the C.I.'s identity would be ascertainable. State v. King, 19-0018 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/10/19) (unpublished). (Dysart, J., dissenting). In my view, such disclosure would violate La. C.E. art. 514(A) as the defendant has failed to prove that "interest of the government in preventing disclosure is substantially outweighed by exceptional circumstances such that the informer's testimony is essential to the preparation of the defense or to a fair determination on the issue of guilt or innocence." La. C.E. art. 514(C).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 So. 3d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-king-la-2019.