State Of Louisiana v. Wilbert Thibodeaux

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 09, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
WILBERT THIBODEAUX
No. 2024-KK-00212
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: W
ilbert Thibodeaux - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Number(s) 13 -190149, Court of
Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2023 KW 1188;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 09, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., would deny.
Genovese, J., would deny.
Crain, J., concurs.
JBM
JDH
SJC
PDG
04/02/2024 "See News Release 016 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2024-KK-00212
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
WILBERT THIBODEAUX
On Supervisory Writ to the 16th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Mary
PER CURIAM.
Granted. Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court erred in failing to
conduct an in camera inspection of the 2013 grand jury testimony. While we
recognize the “ long established policy that the secrecy of grand jury proceedings
should be carefully maintained,”1 La. C.Cr.P. art. 434.1 B requires the disclosure “to
the defendant [of] material evidence favorable to the defendant that was presented
to the grand jury. ” As we explained in State v. Ross, 13-0175, p. 7 (La. 3/25/14) ,
144 So.3d 932, 937-38:
A party seeking disclosure [of grand jury transcripts] has
the burden of proving a “compelling necessity” for the
material sought, and the need must be demonstrated “with
particularity.” That is, the party seeking disclosure must
prove that, without access to the grand jury materials, the
party’s case would be “greatly prejudiced” or that an
“injustice would be done.”
A general request for grand jury testimony that “would reveal exculpatory
evidence,” does not meet the requirement of a particularized need. Id. at 938.
However, where there is a specific request stated with particularity, a trial court may
review grand jury transcripts in camera to determine whether they contain
1 State v. Ross, 13-0175, p. 6 (La. 3/25/14), 144 So.3d 932, 937.
04/09/24

information favorable to a defendant. State v. Francis, 18-1395, p. 1 (La. 9/21/18),
252 So.3d 875, 876.
Although a trial court has discretion in deciding whether to conduct an in
camera inspection, courts have frequently found error in the failure to do so. See,
e.g., State v. Higgins, 02-1241 (La. 5/6/02), 821 So.2d 1281 (“The court is ordered
to inform the defendant prior to trial whether the grand jury transcripts reviewed via
in camera inspection reveal any evidence favorable to the accused which is material
to guilt or innocence under Brady”); State v. Ates, 418 So.2d 1326, 1329 (La. 1982)
(“The defendant’s request was specific, i.e., ‘prior statements of [a witness] , for
purposes of impeachment. . . .’ [I]n this case, the trial judge should have made an in
camera inspection for material inconsistencies and Brady information in the
requested statements of [the witness], for use during cross-examination.”); See also,
State v. Grubbs , 93-2559, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/25/94) , 644 So.2d 1105, 1111
(“The trial court should have conducted an in camera inspection of the grand jury
testimony.”); State v. Marco, 577 So.2d 328, 330 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1991) (“it appears
that defendant is entitled to an in camera inspection of the witness statements.”).
These cases are consistent with State v. Peters, 406 So.2d 189, 191 (La.1981),
where this Court made clear that “an in-camera inspection by the trial judge is a
proper means of accommodating the secrecy of the grand jury and at the same time
protecting defendant's constitutional rights of confrontation and due process.”
Here, the defendant’s Motion for Production and In Camera Inspection of
Grand Jury Testimony sought, inter alia, “any and all testimony before the grand
jury which would point to evidence of [his] mental illness at or near the time of the
offense and/or anyone’s knowledge of [his] mental illness at or near the time of the
offense.” This is the type of specific req uest made with particularity that warrants
an in camera inspection by the trial court . We further find compelling defendant’s
argument that, given the length of time that has elapsed since the offenses, evidence

concerning his then -mental state “from the witnesses close in time to the event is
crucial to the issue of his sanity at the time of the offense.”
Accordingly, we grant the writ application and reverse the judgments of the
lower courts. We remand this matter to the trial court for an in camera inspection of
the grand jury transcripts for any testimony or evidence regarding defendant’s
mental state at the time of the offenses.