State v. Stokes

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Stokes

56 So. 3d 1008, 2011 La. LEXIS 534, 2011 WL 940778

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 11, 2011

DocketNo. 2010-KP-1387

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 56 So. 3d 1008 (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, 56 So. 3d 1008, 2011 La. LEXIS 534, 2011 WL 940778 (La. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Stokes, a/k/a, Lenard B.; Stokes, Leonard B.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 99-F1160; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45548-KW.

Writ granted. Following a rape conviction in which the State’s case rested almost entirely on the victim’s identification, and in which relator presented an alibi defense at trial, the lower courts erred when they denied the application for post-conviction DNA testing based on the alleged failure to establish articulable doubt. La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 926.1(B) and (C). The district court is therefore directed to investigate the availability and integrity of the allegedly untested evidence and to order DNA testing in the event that it determines the results could tend to make relator’s guilt more or less probable. La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 926.1(C) and (D).

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would deny.

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

In re Stokes, a/k/a, Lenard B.; Stokes, Leonard B.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 99-F1160; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45548-KW.

Writ granted. Following a rape conviction in which the State’s case rested almost entirely on the victim’s identification, and in which relator presented an alibi defense at trial, the lower courts erred when they denied the application for post-conviction DNA testing based on the alleged failure to establish articulable doubt. La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 926.1(B) and (C). The district court is therefore directed to investigate the availability and integrity of the allegedly untested evidence and to order DNA testing in the event that it determines the results could tend to make relator’s guilt more or less probable. La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 926.1(C) and (D).

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 So. 3d 1008, 2011 La. LEXIS 534, 2011 WL 940778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stokes-la-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack