2001-KK-2510 Precedential Processed

State Ex Rel. Thibodeaux v. State

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed March 8, 2002 · 811 So. 2d 875

Cited by

State v. Cooper 223 So. 3d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. James J. Flournoy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Flournoy 209 So. 3d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Hall 134 So. 3d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Lewis 126 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Lockett 120 So. 3d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Cureaux 116 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams 93 So. 3d 830 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Thompson 93 So. 3d 553 La. 2012
State v. Johnson 91 So. 3d 1213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Williams 87 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Turner 82 So. 3d 449 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011

all 26 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Bourque 622 So. 2d 198
Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Amb. Serv. 639 So. 2d 216
State v. Hampton 750 So. 2d 867

Opinion text

811 So.2d 875 (2002) STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Shane M. THIBODEAUX v. STATE of Louisiana. No. 2001-KK-2510. Supreme Court of Louisiana. March 8, 2002. PER CURIAM. Writ Granted. The district court found the testimony of the officer witnesses credible and that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his house. In these circumstances, a reviewing court owes that determination great deference and may not overturn it in the absence of manifest error. See, e.g., State v. Bourque, 622 So.2d 198, 222 (La.1993) (a "trial judge's ruling [on a fact question], based on conclusions of credibility and weight of the testimony, is entitled to great deference...."); Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Amb. Serv., 93-3099 pp. 7-9 (La.7/5/95), 639 So.2d 216, 220-21 (reviewing court must affirm trial court's findings of fact "where the latter's judgment is not clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous."); cf. State v. Hampton, 98-0331, p. 12 (La.4/23/99), 750 So.2d 867, 884 ("As a general rule, deferential standards of review apply to factual and other trial determinations, while determinations of law are subject to de novo review."). Accordingly, we reinstate the district court's order denying the defendant's motion to suppress. CALOGERO, C.J., would grant and docket the writ. JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ.