State Of Louisiana v. Albert Franklin

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2019 KW 0645

VERSUS

ALBERT FRANKLIN AUGUST 12, 2019

In Re: Albert Franklin, applying for supervisory writs, 19th
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge,
No. 04- 18- 0404.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McDONALD, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

WRIT DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. An evidentiary
hearing on a motion to suppress shall be held only when the
defendant alleges facts that would require the granting of

relief. La. Code Crim. P. art. 703( E)( 1). Vague and general

legal conclusions, urged in form motions, are inadequate to
require the holding of such a hearing. State v. Wilson, 2016-
0912 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 22/ 17), 2017 WL 716085, at * 5.
However, the record does not support a
finding of contempt of

court by relator' s attorneys. The trial court' s ruling finding
relator' s attorneys in contempt of court is reversed.

JMM
WRC

Guidry, J., dissents in part and would grant the writ

application. Based on the record before us, I find a hearing on
the motion to suppress was held and the district court

impermissibly shifted the burden of proof by requiring the
defendant to present evidence. It is well- settled that at a

hearing on a defendant' s motion to suppress a confession or

inculpatory statement, the State bears the burden of proving
beyond a reasonable doubt the free and voluntary nature of the
confession or statement and, therefore, it is obliged to call

its witnesses first and go forward with its proof to meet its
burden. State v. Smith, 409 So. 2d 271, 272 ( La. 1982). See La.
Code Crim. P. art. 703( D).

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT