State v. Langlois

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Langlois

573 So. 2d 1110, 1991 La. LEXIS 276, 1991 WL 9755

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 25, 1991

DocketNo. 91-KK-0153

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 573 So. 2d 1110 (State v. Langlois) 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. Langlois, 573 So. 2d 1110, 1991 La. LEXIS 276, 1991 WL 9755 (La. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Granted in part. Denied in part.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s in limine ruling that the state may introduce the details of defendant’s prior convictions at the sentencing phase of the trial. See State v. Brown, 514 So.2d 99 (La.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 1754, 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988). The trial court retains the discretion to exclude or limit the evidence at the sentencing phase if the court finds that the testimony will confuse or mislead the jury, La.C.Ev. art. 403, and the defendant will have an adequate remedy on appeal if convicted.

As to defendant’s 1965 conviction in California and his 1968 conviction in Florida, however, the state is directed to provide defense counsel with the names and addresses of the witnesses it intends to call. The remoteness of these out-of-state convictions, and the apparent loss or destruction of the trial record of both convictions, constitute particular and distinctive circumstances justifying disclosure on grounds of fundamental fairness to afford the defendant adequate opportunity to prepare for the sentencing hearing. State v. Walters, 408 So.2d 1337 (La.1982).

With the furnishing of this information, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of funds for investigative assistance at this stage of the proceedings.

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

ORDER

Granted in part. Denied in part.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s in limine ruling that the state may introduce the details of defendant’s prior convictions at the sentencing phase of the trial. See State v. Brown, 514 So.2d 99 (La.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 1754, 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988). The trial court retains the discretion to exclude or limit the evidence at the sentencing phase if the court finds that the testimony will confuse or mislead the jury, La.C.Ev. art. 403, and the defendant will have an adequate remedy on appeal if convicted.

As to defendant’s 1965 conviction in California and his 1968 conviction in Florida, however, the state is directed to provide defense counsel with the names and addresses of the witnesses it intends to call. The remoteness of these out-of-state convictions, and the apparent loss or destruction of the trial record of both convictions, constitute particular and distinctive circumstances justifying disclosure on grounds of fundamental fairness to afford the defendant adequate opportunity to prepare for the sentencing hearing. State v. Walters, 408 So.2d 1337 (La.1982).

With the furnishing of this information, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of funds for investigative assistance at this stage of the proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 So. 2d 1110, 1991 La. LEXIS 276, 1991 WL 9755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-langlois-la-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack