State Of Louisiana v. Calvin M. Williams, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 08, 2021
Second Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
CALVIN M. WILLIAMS, JR.
No.2021-K-00205
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Calvin M. Williams, Jr. - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of
Certiorari, Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 546-573,
Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2020-KA-0403;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 08, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Genovese, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by Chief Justice
Weimer, Justice Crichton, and Justice McCallum.
Crain, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer,
Justice Crichton, and Justice McCallum.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
06/08/2021 "See News Release 025 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

)? 4.F
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.202l-K-00205
STATE OF LOUISIANA
versus
CALVIN M. WILLIAMS, JR.
JUN 08 2021
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,
FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
CURIAM:
Granted. After the trial court granted defendant's motion to exclude a cellphone
video that the State failed to authenticate, the State dismissed the prosecution during
jury selection before the jury was sworn. On the next day, the State reinstituted the
prosecution. Defendant then filed a motion to quash, which the trial court granted. The
court of appeal reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting
defendant's motion to quash. State v. Williams,2020-0403 (La. App. 4 Cir.12116120),
312 So.3d 1148. Judge Love dissented and found the State entered its order of nolle
prosequi to evade the trial court's evidentiary ruling. Williams,2020-0403,p.3,312
So.3d at I 153 (Love, J., dissenting). We agree
As in State v. Reimonenq, 2079-0367 (La. l0l22ll9),286 So.3d 412, the
evidence was properly excluded by the trial court, and the State, by using the vast
authority provided by La.C.Cr.P. arts. 61 and 691, evaded the trial court's evidentiary
ruling without seeking appellate review. Inherent in justice and the concept of
fundamental fairness is ensuring a "balance of forces between the accused and his
accuser." Wardius v. Oregon,412 U.S. 470,474,93 S. Ct. 2208,2212,37 L.Ed.2d82
..tt i
06/08/21

(1973). As in Reimonenq, the State's exercise of its statutory right under La.C.Cr.P.
arts. 61 and 691 to dismiss and reinstitute charges against defendant upset this "balance
of forces" to such a degree that it violates defendant's right to due process and
fundamental fairness. Thus, under the circumstances presented here, we find the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's motion to quash. Therefore,
we reverse the opinion of the court of appeal and we reinstate the trial court's ruling.
REVERSED
2