State v. Stewart

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Stewart

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

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 25, 2003

DocketNo. 2002-KK-2602

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

845 So. 2d 1046, 2003 La. LEXIS 1118, 2003 WL 1949568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stewart-la-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack