State Of Louisiana v. Corey Morgan

Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 25, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
COREY MORGAN
No. 2024-KK-01327
_ _
_ _ _ _
IN
RE: Corey Morgan - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Number(s) 20- 03840, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2024-K-0574;
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 25, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
JTK
WJC
JBM
PDG
JMG
02/25/2025 "See News Release 007 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 24-KK-1327
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
COREY MORGAN
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE THIRTY-FOURTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. BERNARD
PER CURIAM:
Writ application granted. The trial court erred in granting the State’s motion
in limine to present surrogate analyst testimony regarding the report and/or
underlying data generated by an absent analyst of evidence gathered by police after
defendant’s arrest when that analyst is allegedly unavailable and where defendant
has not had an opportunity to cross examine that particular analyst. See Crawford
v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); Melendez-
Diaz v. Massachusetts , 557 U.S. 305, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009);
Bullcoming v. New Mexico , 564 U.S. 647, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 180 L.Ed.2d 610
(2011). In reaching that decision, the trial court failed to consider the actual
evidence about which the surrogate analyst plans to testify and thus failed to
address whether it constitutes “testimonial hearsay,” triggering the Sixth
Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. See Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779, 144 S.Ct.
1785, 219 L.Ed.2d 420 (2024); see also State v. Mullins , 14-2260, 14 -2310 (La.
1/27/16), 188 So.3d 164; La.C.E. 803(8)(b)(iii). The matter is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this ruling.
February 25, 2025