State v. Wells
This text of 767 So. 2d 39 (State v. Wells) 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.
Opinion
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Ed Quinney WELLS.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Denied.
CALOGERO, C.J., and LEMMON, J., would grant the writ.
JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ and assigns reasons.
JOHNSON, J., Dissenting.
I would grant the writ application and reverse defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine, with intent to distribute.
The state, in closing and in rebuttal arguments, referred to an anonymous telephone call that indicated a black male was selling drugs in the 700 block of Leland St.
When the state's witness testified about receiving a tip from an anonymous caller in the state's case in chief, defendant's counsel objected, and the hearsay objection was sustained. Despite an admonition by the court to ignore the hearsay testimony, the state argued the hearsay evidence again in closing and in rebuttal.
The hearsay testimony was offered as the truth of the matter asserted, and as evidence of defendant's guilt with regard to his intent to distribute cocaine. In my view, the hearsay testimony influenced the jury and contributed to its verdict. State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), 710 So.2d 1065
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
767 So. 2d 39, 2000 WL 1358079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wells-la-2000.