State v. Woolridge

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Woolridge

80 So. 3d 468, 2012 La. LEXIS 329

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 7, 2012

DocketNo. 2012-KK-0317

StatusPublished

This text of 80 So. 3d 468 (State v. Woolridge) 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. Woolridge, 80 So. 3d 468, 2012 La. LEXIS 329 (La. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 489-552; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1624.

Writ granted. The ruling of the trial court denying the motion in limine is reversed, and the State is permitted to introduce the statements of the victim made to the Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office, subject to a limiting instruction under La. C.E. art. 105 if requested by the defendants. The statements sought to be introduced are not inadmissible hearsay because they are not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that the individual identified by the victim committed the 2008 armed robbery. Rather, the statements are being offered for the purpose of establishing the defendants’ motive for killing the victim, i.e., retaliation for the victim’s cooperation with law enforcement authorities regarding the armed robbery case.

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 Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 489-552; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1624.

Writ granted. The ruling of the trial court denying the motion in limine is reversed, and the State is permitted to introduce the statements of the victim made to the Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office, subject to a limiting instruction under La. C.E. art. 105 if requested by the defendants. The statements sought to be introduced are not inadmissible hearsay because they are not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that the individual identified by the victim committed the 2008 armed robbery. Rather, the statements are being offered for the purpose of establishing the defendants’ motive for killing the victim, i.e., retaliation for the victim’s cooperation with law enforcement authorities regarding the armed robbery case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 So. 3d 468, 2012 La. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-woolridge-la-2012.