State v. Smith

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Smith

212 So. 3d 1165, 2017 WL 986061, 2017 La. LEXIS 552

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided March 13, 2017·No. No. 17-KK-0020·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

|/Writ granted in part. The district court abused its discretion in issuing the subpoena duces tecum for the Vulnerability Assessment and Threat Analysis Group/Training Center (VATA) materials because the narrowly defined criteria provided in State v. Marcelin, 10-2036 (La. 10/15/10), 46 So.3d 191 (per curiam), were not met. See also United States v. Bueno, 443 F.3d 1017, 1026 (8th Cir. 2006) (“[A] moving party must show, among other things, that the documents are evidentiary and relevant and that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a [1166] general fishing expedition.”). The subpoena duces tecum for VATA materials is hereby quashed. In all other respects, the application is denied.

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

PER CURIAM:

|/Writ granted in part. The district court abused its discretion in issuing the subpoena duces tecum for the Vulnerability Assessment and Threat Analysis Group/Training Center (VATA) materials because the narrowly defined criteria provided in State v. Marcelin, 10-2036 (La. 10/15/10), 46 So.3d 191 (per curiam), were not met. See also United States v. Bueno, 443 F.3d 1017, 1026 (8th Cir. 2006) (“[A] moving party must show, among other things, that the documents are evidentiary and relevant and that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a [1166] general fishing expedition.”). The subpoena duces tecum for VATA materials is hereby quashed. In all other respects, the application is denied.

State v. Smith, 212 So. 3d 1165, 2017 WL 986061, 2017 La. LEXIS 552 (La. 2017).

Pincite

212 So. 3d 1165 (State v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related