State v. Sholes

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Sholes

920 So. 2d 212, 2006 La. LEXIS 2, 2006 WL 39184

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 9, 2006

DocketNo. 2005-KP-1290

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 920 So. 2d 212 (State v. Sholes) 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. Sholes, 920 So. 2d 212, 2006 La. LEXIS 2, 2006 WL 39184 (La. 2006).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Writ granted. The district court’s judgment granting relator post-conviction relief is vacated and relator’s conviction and sentence are reinstated. All three witnesses positively identified relator from a photographic lineup and at trial as the man they saw after the gunshot that claimed the victim’s life was fired. Against this backdrop, and given the overall consistency of the witnesses’ statements and trial testimony, the slight inaccuracies in the witnesses’ description of relator’s physical characteristics, and the omission of some narrative details offered by their trial testimony from their prior statements to the police, do not rise to a level of materiality warranting reversal under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and its progeny. See, e.g., State v. Marshall, 81-3115, p. 16 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 819 (“Evidence is material [and reversal warranted] only if it is reasonably probable that the result of the proceeding would have been different had the evidence been disclosed to the defense. A reasonable probability is one which is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”).

CALOGERO, C.J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

Writ granted. The district court’s judgment granting relator post-conviction relief is vacated and relator’s conviction and sentence are reinstated. All three witnesses positively identified relator from a photographic lineup and at trial as the man they saw after the gunshot that claimed the victim’s life was fired. Against this backdrop, and given the overall consistency of the witnesses’ statements and trial testimony, the slight inaccuracies in the witnesses’ description of relator’s physical characteristics, and the omission of some narrative details offered by their trial testimony from their prior statements to the police, do not rise to a level of materiality warranting reversal under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and its progeny. See, e.g., State v. Marshall, 81-3115, p. 16 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 819 (“Evidence is material [and reversal warranted] only if it is reasonably probable that the result of the proceeding would have been different had the evidence been disclosed to the defense. A reasonable probability is one which is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”).

CALOGERO, C.J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

920 So. 2d 212, 2006 La. LEXIS 2, 2006 WL 39184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sholes-la-2006.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack