State Of Louisiana v. John Honore, Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 07, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
JOHN HONORE, ET AL.
No. 2023-KK-00637
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 554- 135, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2023-K-0239;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 07, 2023
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
JTG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JBM
06/07/2023 "See News Release 028 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 23-KK-0637
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
J
OHN HONORE, ET AL
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
PE
R CURIAM:
W
rit granted. “Cases shall be set for trial by the court on motion of the state,
and may be set for trial on motion of the defendant.” La.C.Cr.P. art. 702. While a
prosecutor’s authority includes determining “whom, when, and how he shall
prosecute[,]” as set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 61, that authority does not extend to
controlling when the trial court sets the case for trial, once the motion to do so is
made, pursuant to Art. 702. Instead, the trial court exercises its discretion in
selecting the trial date.
“Where there is an exercise of discretion, there is a potential for abuse of
that discretion, and that abuse must be subject to appellate review.” State v. Young,
96-0195, p. 1 (La. 10/15/96), 680 So.2d 1171, 1175 (Calogero, C.J., dissenting).
See also State v. Watson, 2022 -00719, p. 2 (La. 5/1/22) , 338 So.3d 1169, 1170
(Crain, J., dissenting) (“Thus, once the charge is filed and the case is assigned, the
trial judge controls the proceedings, subject to review for an abuse of discretion.”).
Here, after careful review of the transcript of the hearing and the trial court’s per
curiam, we find the trial court abused its discretion in selecting a new trial date
approximately 11 months away after this court remanded with instructions to set “a
06/07/23

2

new trial date that will afford the defendants additional time to respond to the
State’s DNA and fingerprint evidence.” State v. Honore, et al. , 2023-00461 (La.
4/4/23), ___ So.3d ___ (per curiam), available at 2023 WL 2911025.
A court “has the duty to require that criminal proceedings shall be conducted
with dignit y and in an orderly and expeditious manner and to so control the
proceedings that justice is done.” La.C.Cr.P. art. 17. Additionally, “the interests of
the victim’s family in closure and of the defendants’ interests in a speedy trial must
be weighed and ba lanced.” State v. Honore, et al. , 2023 -00461, p. 2, 2023 WL
2911025 *1 (Weimer, C.J., concurring). A trial date should be selected “that
assures that both the State and the defendants are adequately prepared to proceed
with trial [and that] strikes the appropriate balance and averts potential errors
which might, at a later date, require a reversal and retrial. The ultimate goal of a
trial is a just result.” Ibid. Here, the record does not reflect that a careful weighing
and balancing of those concerns with that goal in mind occurred. Instead, we find
the selection of the March 2024 trial date is an abuse of discretion.
Therefore, we grant the State’s application and vacate the trial court’s ruling
that set trial for March 18, 2024. After carefully weighing and balancing the
considerations above, and after evaluating the competing scheduling considerations
listed in the trial court’s per curiam, we remand to the trial court with instructions
to select a trial date in the year 2023.
REVERSED AND REMANDED