State of Louisiana v. Stephon Gary Fieldings

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2023 KW 0468

VERSUS

STEPHON GARY FIELDINGS MAY 17, 2023

In Re: Stephan Gary Fieldings, applying for supervisory
writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East
Baton Rouge, No. DC-20-02670.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., WOLFE AND MILLER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED.

JMG
EW

Mi11er, J., dissents and would grant the writ application.
I find the trial court abused its discretion by granting the
defendant's motion to suppress, which was filed on the day of
trial. A defendant must allege the grounds on which he claims
that evidence should be suppressed in the motion to suppress.
State v. Montejo, 2006-1807 ( La. 5/11/10), 40 So.3d 952, 970.
In the instant case, the trial court granted the motion to
suppress based on the state' s failure to demonstrate the proper
Miranda warning given. However, in the motion to suppress, the
defendant asserted that his statements should be suppressed
because he was intoxicated and under the influence of illicit
substances affecting his ability to reason and his awareness of
the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of
the decision to abandon them, but not due to a defect in the
Miranda warning. Accordingly, I would vacate the trial court
ruling and remand this matter to the trial court to reopen the
suppression hearing, and consider the grounds raised in the
defendant's motion to suppress. See State v. Scarborough, 2018-
1791 ( La. 11/14/18), 256 So. 3d 265, 266 (" [ W] e vacate the
district court's ruling and remand with instructions that the
district court conduct a new suppression hearing at which, at
the minimum, the detective who was previously unavailable can
testify.")

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

R,
FOR THE COURT