State v. Watkins

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Watkins

191 So. 3d 1061, 2016 WL 3136453, 2016 La. LEXIS 1208

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 20, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-KK-2244

StatusPublished

This text of 191 So. 3d 1061 (State v. Watkins) 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. Watkins, 191 So. 3d 1061, 2016 WL 3136453, 2016 La. LEXIS 1208 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 524368; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 KW 1588.

Granted. We hereby vacate the ruling of the District Court granting defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the inculpating conversation between defendant and his wife on the basis of the spousal confidential communications privilege. The case is remanded to the District Court for consideration of the State’s argument that La. R.S. 14:403(B) abrogates the spousal confidential communications privilege as it applies to this prosecution for possession of child pornography.

JOHNSON, C.J., WEIMER and HUGHES, JJ., would deny.

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

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 524368; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 KW 1588.

Granted. We hereby vacate the ruling of the District Court granting defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the inculpating conversation between defendant and his wife on the basis of the spousal confidential communications privilege. The case is remanded to the District Court for consideration of the State’s argument that La. R.S. 14:403(B) abrogates the spousal confidential communications privilege as it applies to this prosecution for possession of child pornography.

JOHNSON, C.J., WEIMER and HUGHES, JJ., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 So. 3d 1061, 2016 WL 3136453, 2016 La. LEXIS 1208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-watkins-la-2016.