State v. LeBlanc

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. LeBlanc

270 So. 2d 878, 264 La. 232

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 9, 1973

DocketNo. 53066

StatusPublished

This text of 270 So. 2d 878 (State v. LeBlanc) 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. LeBlanc, 270 So. 2d 878, 264 La. 232 (La. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In re: Bert C. LeBlanc applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order.

Writ denied. Adequate remedy by review in the event of conviction.

BARHAM, J., dissents.

The prayer for oral inculpatory statements should have been granted. There is no valid reason for differentiating between written and oral confessions. This court has already extended Code of Criminal Procedure Article 703 to statements other than written as there provided. Extending that article to oral inculpatory and exculpatory statements would do no violence to the statutory scheme.

Moreover, the trial court should have granted the motion for access to any electronic surveillance evidence in order that it might be determined whether such evidence was obtained unconstitutionally in violation of Fourth Amendment rights. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). See also Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 92 S.Ct. 2357, 33 L.Ed.2d 179 (1972).

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

In re: Bert C. LeBlanc applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order.

Writ denied. Adequate remedy by review in the event of conviction.

BARHAM, J., dissents.

The prayer for oral inculpatory statements should have been granted. There is no valid reason for differentiating between written and oral confessions. This court has already extended Code of Criminal Procedure Article 703 to statements other than written as there provided. Extending that article to oral inculpatory and exculpatory statements would do no violence to the statutory scheme.

Moreover, the trial court should have granted the motion for access to any electronic surveillance evidence in order that it might be determined whether such evidence was obtained unconstitutionally in violation of Fourth Amendment rights. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). See also Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 92 S.Ct. 2357, 33 L.Ed.2d 179 (1972).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 So. 2d 878, 264 La. 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-leblanc-la-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack