State v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Taylor

164 So. 3d 182, 2015 La. LEXIS 514, 2015 WL 1401516

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 27, 2015

DocketNo. 2014-KO-1551

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 So. 3d 182 (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, 164 So. 3d 182, 2015 La. LEXIS 514, 2015 WL 1401516 (La. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

1 iWrit granted. The ruling of the court of appeal is reversed. As the State of Louisiana called Officer Hunt as its only witness and relied solely on evidence produced by him, we find his subsequent convictions of perjury and malfeasance in office to merit consideration by a second jury. In contrast to the court of appeal, we find these convictions do constitute newly discovered evidence, because the underlying facts supporting them were set into motion at least two months prior to the defendant’s trial. As such, under the unique circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice, the defendant should be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine Officer Hunt regarding his prior felony convictions of perjury and malfeasance in office as allowed by Louisiana Code Evid. art. 607. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for a new trial is hereby granted and the case is remanded to the district court for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

1 iWrit granted. The ruling of the court of appeal is reversed. As the State of Louisiana called Officer Hunt as its only witness and relied solely on evidence produced by him, we find his subsequent convictions of perjury and malfeasance in office to merit consideration by a second jury. In contrast to the court of appeal, we find these convictions do constitute newly discovered evidence, because the underlying facts supporting them were set into motion at least two months prior to the defendant’s trial. As such, under the unique circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice, the defendant should be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine Officer Hunt regarding his prior felony convictions of perjury and malfeasance in office as allowed by Louisiana Code Evid. art. 607. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for a new trial is hereby granted and the case is remanded to the district court for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 So. 3d 182, 2015 La. LEXIS 514, 2015 WL 1401516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-taylor-la-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack