State v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Taylor

26 So. 3d 776, 2010 La. LEXIS 182, 2010 WL 396234

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 5, 2010

Docket2009-KK-2341

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 26 So. 3d 776 (State v. Taylor) 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. Taylor, 26 So. 3d 776, 2010 La. LEXIS 182, 2010 WL 396234 (La. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Writ granted. The right of confrontation contained in the United States and the Louisiana Constitutions is not implicated in this pre-trial matter. See State v. Harris, 08-2117, p. 1 (La.12/19/08), 998 So.2d 55, 56. Moreover, the Louisiana Constitution protects the rights of victims of crime to refuse to be interviewed by the accused. La. Const, art. I, § 25. Accordingly, La. Rev.Stat. § 46:1844(0(3) provides that a defendant must show “good cause” at a contradictory hearing with the district attorney why a crime victim should be subpoenaed to testify at any pre-trial hearing.

On the showing made, the defendant has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification procedures used that would justify the production of the victims/witnesses at the preliminary hearing. See State v. Harris, 08-2117, p. 2, 998 So.2d at 56. Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the testimony of the police officers as to the identification procedures used and the descriptions given by the victims/witnesses is generally admissible at a preliminary hearing to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification. La.Code Evid. arts. 104(A) and 1101(C)(1); State v. Shirley, 08-2106, pp. 5-7 (La.5/5/09), 10 So.3d 224, 228-29. Consequently, the ruling of the district court ordexdng the victims/witnesses to testify at the motion to suppress hearing in this matter is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

Writ granted. The right of confrontation contained in the United States and the Louisiana Constitutions is not implicated in this pre-trial matter. See State v. Harris, 08-2117, p. 1 (La.12/19/08), 998 So.2d 55, 56. Moreover, the Louisiana Constitution protects the rights of victims of crime to refuse to be interviewed by the accused. La. Const, art. I, § 25. Accordingly, La. Rev.Stat. § 46:1844(0(3) provides that a defendant must show “good cause” at a contradictory hearing with the district attorney why a crime victim should be subpoenaed to testify at any pre-trial hearing.

On the showing made, the defendant has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification procedures used that would justify the production of the victims/witnesses at the preliminary hearing. See State v. Harris, 08-2117, p. 2, 998 So.2d at 56. Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the testimony of the police officers as to the identification procedures used and the descriptions given by the victims/witnesses is generally admissible at a preliminary hearing to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification. La.Code Evid. arts. 104(A) and 1101(C)(1); State v. Shirley, 08-2106, pp. 5-7 (La.5/5/09), 10 So.3d 224, 228-29. Consequently, the ruling of the district court ordexdng the victims/witnesses to testify at the motion to suppress hearing in this matter is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 So. 3d 776, 2010 La. LEXIS 182, 2010 WL 396234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-taylor-la-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack