State v. Waterhouse

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Waterhouse

182 So. 3d 964, 2016 La. LEXIS 62, 2016 WL 229438

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 15, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-KK-2301

StatusPublished

This text of 182 So. 3d 964 (State v. Waterhouse) 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. Waterhouse, 182 So. 3d 964, 2016 La. LEXIS 62, 2016 WL 229438 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinions

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans.

I,Writ granted. The trial court’s judgment granting defendant’s motion to suppress photographic evidence is reversed, and defendant’s motion to suppress is hereby denied. According ample discretion to the trial court, under the circumstances of this case, it is apparent the-trial court misapplied the standard set’ forth -in La.Code Evid. art; 403. The evidence at issue is relevant, and its probatiye value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of, undue delay, or waste of time.

JOHNSON, C.J., would deny the writ. HUGHES, J., would deny the writ.

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

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans.

I,Writ granted. The trial court’s judgment granting defendant’s motion to suppress photographic evidence is reversed, and defendant’s motion to suppress is hereby denied. According ample discretion to the trial court, under the circumstances of this case, it is apparent the-trial court misapplied the standard set’ forth -in La.Code Evid. art; 403. The evidence at issue is relevant, and its probatiye value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of, undue delay, or waste of time.

JOHNSON, C.J., would deny the writ. HUGHES, J., would deny the writ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 So. 3d 964, 2016 La. LEXIS 62, 2016 WL 229438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-waterhouse-la-2016.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack