State v. Prestridge

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Prestridge

457 So. 2d 1203, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 10317

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 20, 1984

DocketNo. K84-796

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 457 So. 2d 1203 (State v. Prestridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Prestridge, 457 So. 2d 1203, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 10317 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant in this case is charged with the crime of first degree murder and faces the possibility of the death penalty. The evidence presented with defendant’s writ application, which includes evidence that this case has already received extensive pretrial publicity, establishes a reasonable likelihood that defendant’s right to a fair trial will be substantially prejudiced by a hearing open to the press and public of defendant’s motion to suppress confessions, admissions or inculpatory statements. As stated in State v. Birdsong, 422 So.2d 1135 (La.1982):

“... Our Code of Criminal Procedure has built-in safeguards not afforded to persons accused of lesser crimes which impose less severe penalties. Hence, we should be overcautious when considering the due process rights of a person accused of a capital offense. Defendant’s right to a fair trial can be protected from the adverse effects of pretrial publicity by simply closing the suppression hearing to the public and press who do not have an enforceable right to be present.” (footnote omitted).

For these reasons, the ruling of the trial judge denying defendant a closed pretrial suppression hearing on the motion to suppress is reversed. Defendant’s motion to close the hearing to the public and press is granted. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant in this case is charged with the crime of first degree murder and faces the possibility of the death penalty. The evidence presented with defendant’s writ application, which includes evidence that this case has already received extensive pretrial publicity, establishes a reasonable likelihood that defendant’s right to a fair trial will be substantially prejudiced by a hearing open to the press and public of defendant’s motion to suppress confessions, admissions or inculpatory statements. As stated in State v. Birdsong, 422 So.2d 1135 (La.1982):

“... Our Code of Criminal Procedure has built-in safeguards not afforded to persons accused of lesser crimes which impose less severe penalties. Hence, we should be overcautious when considering the due process rights of a person accused of a capital offense. Defendant’s right to a fair trial can be protected from the adverse effects of pretrial publicity by simply closing the suppression hearing to the public and press who do not have an enforceable right to be present.” (footnote omitted).

For these reasons, the ruling of the trial judge denying defendant a closed pretrial suppression hearing on the motion to suppress is reversed. Defendant’s motion to close the hearing to the public and press is granted. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 So. 2d 1203, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 10317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-prestridge-lactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack