State v. Stokes

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Stokes

841 So. 2d 758, 2003 La. LEXIS 616, 2003 WL 753565

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 28, 2003

DocketNo. 2003-KK-0556

StatusPublished

This text of 841 So. 2d 758 (State v. Stokes) 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. Stokes, 841 So. 2d 758, 2003 La. LEXIS 616, 2003 WL 753565 (La. 2003).

Pincite

Opinions

In re: State of Louisiana — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 97-F1881-1; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37403.

Writ granted in part; denied in part. The court of appeal’s decision, insofar as it found that the statements against penal interest allegedly made to Glen Nelson by Tony Hunter are admissible, is hereby reversed. The district court judge totally discredited the testimony of Nelson. In the absence of corroborating evidence to demonstrate the trustworthiness and reliability of Nelson’s testimony regarding the alleged statements made to him by Hunter, such hearsay statements are inadmissible. La. Code Evid. art. 804(B)(3); State v. Hammons, 597 So.2d 990 (La.1992). In all other respects, the writ application is denied.

KIMBALL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, being of the opinion that the State’s writ application should be denied in full. [759]*759JOHNSON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons. VICTORY, TRAYLOR, and KNOLL, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part, being of the opinion that the State’s writ application should be granted in full.

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

In re: State of Louisiana — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 97-F1881-1; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37403.

Writ granted in part; denied in part. The court of appeal’s decision, insofar as it found that the statements against penal interest allegedly made to Glen Nelson by Tony Hunter are admissible, is hereby reversed. The district court judge totally discredited the testimony of Nelson. In the absence of corroborating evidence to demonstrate the trustworthiness and reliability of Nelson’s testimony regarding the alleged statements made to him by Hunter, such hearsay statements are inadmissible. La. Code Evid. art. 804(B)(3); State v. Hammons, 597 So.2d 990 (La.1992). In all other respects, the writ application is denied.

KIMBALL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, being of the opinion that the State’s writ application should be denied in full. [759]*759JOHNSON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons. VICTORY, TRAYLOR, and KNOLL, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part, being of the opinion that the State’s writ application should be granted in full.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

841 So. 2d 758, 2003 La. LEXIS 616, 2003 WL 753565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stokes-la-2003.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack