State v. Theriot

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Theriot

369 So. 2d 708, 1979 La. LEXIS 8146

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 30, 1979

DocketNo. 64083

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 369 So. 2d 708 (State v. Theriot) 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. Theriot, 369 So. 2d 708, 1979 La. LEXIS 8146 (La. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

DIXON, Justice,

concurs in granting the writ for the following reasons:

This is a complaint from the denial of a motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informer and from the denial of a motion to quash because of a seven months delay from the date of the offense until the arrest and charge. Defendants were arrested August 2,1978 for a charge of selling phencyclidine to Deputy Breaux at the house occupied by the two defendants on January 23, 1978. The deputy is supposed to have gone to the house with a confidential informer named Art who introduced Breaux to the two defendants.

The defense is that Breaux did not come to the house on January 23, 1978, and there is some evidence to support this contention. At any rate, it is alleged that Art was a material witness and his identity should be made known to the defendants so they could have the advantage of his testimony.

The allegation is made that this was a case of entrapment, but there is little argument to support that defense. However, no [709]*709reason is suggested why the witness to the transaction should not be subject to summons by the defense. The defense is entitled to the benefit of Art’s knowledge and the state has no right to hide the identity of the witness,

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

DIXON, Justice,

concurs in granting the writ for the following reasons:

This is a complaint from the denial of a motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informer and from the denial of a motion to quash because of a seven months delay from the date of the offense until the arrest and charge. Defendants were arrested August 2,1978 for a charge of selling phencyclidine to Deputy Breaux at the house occupied by the two defendants on January 23, 1978. The deputy is supposed to have gone to the house with a confidential informer named Art who introduced Breaux to the two defendants.

The defense is that Breaux did not come to the house on January 23, 1978, and there is some evidence to support this contention. At any rate, it is alleged that Art was a material witness and his identity should be made known to the defendants so they could have the advantage of his testimony.

The allegation is made that this was a case of entrapment, but there is little argument to support that defense. However, no [709]*709reason is suggested why the witness to the transaction should not be subject to summons by the defense. The defense is entitled to the benefit of Art’s knowledge and the state has no right to hide the identity of the witness,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 So. 2d 708, 1979 La. LEXIS 8146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-theriot-la-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack