State v. Klein

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Klein

206 So. 3d 857, 2016 La. LEXIS 2636

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 18, 2016

DocketNO. 2016-KK-1309

StatusPublished

This text of 206 So. 3d 857 (State v. Klein) 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. Klein, 206 So. 3d 857, 2016 La. LEXIS 2636 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

CRICHTON, J.,

would grant and assigns reasons:

lil respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to deny this writ application. Specifically, the complainant’s initial report of rape to law enforcement should be admitted in its entirety and I would therefore reverse the lower courts’ conclusions to the contrary. First, the identity of the complainant, as well as her previous false identities and, second, her first (and previous) occupations should all be known to the jury. The fact that the complainant has chosen to use pseudonyms and to engage in, her chosen line of employment is material, and relevant background for defense counsel to examine and for the jury to consider—just as the identity and employment history of any witness, especially a complainant in a criminal case, is also pertinent. None of this, in my view, violates Louisiana Code of Evidence art. 412. Moreover, to the extent that the complainant was arguably less than truthful to police in her initial statement, in my view, this constitutes impeachment evidence which the jury should also be allowed to consider. See La. C.E. Art. 607.

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

CRICHTON, J.,

would grant and assigns reasons:

lil respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to deny this writ application. Specifically, the complainant’s initial report of rape to law enforcement should be admitted in its entirety and I would therefore reverse the lower courts’ conclusions to the contrary. First, the identity of the complainant, as well as her previous false identities and, second, her first (and previous) occupations should all be known to the jury. The fact that the complainant has chosen to use pseudonyms and to engage in, her chosen line of employment is material, and relevant background for defense counsel to examine and for the jury to consider—just as the identity and employment history of any witness, especially a complainant in a criminal case, is also pertinent. None of this, in my view, violates Louisiana Code of Evidence art. 412. Moreover, to the extent that the complainant was arguably less than truthful to police in her initial statement, in my view, this constitutes impeachment evidence which the jury should also be allowed to consider. See La. C.E. Art. 607.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 So. 3d 857, 2016 La. LEXIS 2636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-klein-la-2016.