State v. Stewart

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Stewart

845 So. 2d 1046, 2003 La. LEXIS 1118, 2003 WL 1949568

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Stewart. Read the opinion of the Court — 815 So. 2d 14 →

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided April 25, 2003·No. No. 2002-KK-2602·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Writ granted in part, otherwise denied. After performing an in camera inspection of Carlton Thornton’s informant file as ordered by the court of appeal, the district court shall disclose all material exculpatory evidence contained in such a file to the defendant. La.C.Cr.P. art. 718(A); see, e.g., Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1566, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3381, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).

Further, on the showing made, it appears that Thornton’s February 29, 2000 arrest may confer upon the state some leverage over him, potentially affecting his testimony. The district court should thus hold a hearing to determine whether the state could file charges or otherwise exert leverage over Thornton as a result of the arrest. If it can, the defendant is entitled to introduce such information at trial. State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), 666 So.2d 1070, 1072. See also La.C.E. art. 607(D)(1)(“Extrinsic evidence to show a witness’ bias, interest, corruption, or defect of capacity is admissible to attack the credibility of the witness.”).

[1047]*1047In all other respects, the application is denied.

TRAYLOR and KNOLL, JJ., would deny the writ.

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

PER CURIAM.

Writ granted in part, otherwise denied. After performing an in camera inspection of Carlton Thornton’s informant file as ordered by the court of appeal, the district court shall disclose all material exculpatory evidence contained in such a file to the defendant. La.C.Cr.P. art. 718(A); see, e.g., Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1566, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3381, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).

Further, on the showing made, it appears that Thornton’s February 29, 2000 arrest may confer upon the state some leverage over him, potentially affecting his testimony. The district court should thus hold a hearing to determine whether the state could file charges or otherwise exert leverage over Thornton as a result of the arrest. If it can, the defendant is entitled to introduce such information at trial. State v. Vale, 95-1230, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), 666 So.2d 1070, 1072. See also La.C.E. art. 607(D)(1)(“Extrinsic evidence to show a witness’ bias, interest, corruption, or defect of capacity is admissible to attack the credibility of the witness.”).

[1047]*1047In all other respects, the application is denied.

TRAYLOR and KNOLL, JJ., would deny the writ.

State v. Stewart, 845 So. 2d 1046, 2003 La. LEXIS 1118, 2003 WL 1949568 (La. 2003).

Pincite

845 So. 2d 1046 (State v. Stewart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related