State v. Paul

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Paul

202 So. 3d 995, 2016 La. LEXIS 2145

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 2, 2016

DocketNo. 15-KP-2278

StatusPublished

This text of 202 So. 3d 995 (State v. Paul) 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. Paul, 202 So. 3d 995, 2016 La. LEXIS 2145 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

1 1 Writ granted. The district court’s ruling dismissing relator’s actual innocence claim is reversed and the claim is remanded for consideration after an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Pierre, 13-0873, p. 4 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403, 409 (new evidence of actual innocence must be so compelling that no reasonable juror could have voted to convict with knowledge thereof); State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290, 291 (assuming post-conviction claims of actual innocence not based on DNA evidence are cognizable, they must be supported by “new, material, noncumulative and conclusive evidence which meets an extraordinarily high standard, and which undermin[e]s the prosecution’s entire case.”).

GUIDRY, J., dissents and would deny the writ. CLARK, J., dissents and would deny.

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

PER CURIAM:

1 1 Writ granted. The district court’s ruling dismissing relator’s actual innocence claim is reversed and the claim is remanded for consideration after an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Pierre, 13-0873, p. 4 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403, 409 (new evidence of actual innocence must be so compelling that no reasonable juror could have voted to convict with knowledge thereof); State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290, 291 (assuming post-conviction claims of actual innocence not based on DNA evidence are cognizable, they must be supported by “new, material, noncumulative and conclusive evidence which meets an extraordinarily high standard, and which undermin[e]s the prosecution’s entire case.”).

GUIDRY, J., dissents and would deny the writ. CLARK, J., dissents and would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 So. 3d 995, 2016 La. LEXIS 2145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-paul-la-2016.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack