State Of Louisiana v. Leon Curry, III

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 17, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
LEON CURRY, III
No. 2025-KK-00365
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN
RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) DC -22-03865,
Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2025 KW 0043;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 17, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
PDG
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
JMG
CRC
06/17/2025 "See News Release 028 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 25-KK-0365
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
LEON CURRY, III
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
PER CURIAM:
Granted. The trial court’s ruling granting defendant’s motion to suppress his
recorded statement is reversed.
On the morning of April 18, 2022 defendant Leon Curry was detained and
brought to the Violent Crimes Unit for questioning. At the start of the interview,
defendant was informed of his rights under Miranda, both verbally and in writing.
Defendant initially invoked his right to counsel. Once a suspect has “expressed his
desire to deal with the police only through counsel,” all questioning must cease
“until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself init iates
further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Edwards v.
Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484 –85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).
“[I]nquiries or statements, by either an accused or a police officer, relating to
routine incidents of the custodial relationship, will not generally ‘initiate’ a
conversation in the sense in which that word was used in Edwards.” Oregon v.
Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1045, 103 S.Ct. 2830, 2835, 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983). On
the other hand, statements mad e by a suspect which do not relate to routine
incidents of booking but either directly or indirectly “evince[] a willingness and a

2
desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation,” Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at
1045–46, 103 S.Ct. at 2835, may initiate further police questioning for purposes of
Edwards, shifting the inquiry to the question of whether the suspect then
knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.
In this case, despite initially invoking his right to counsel, defendant —and
not law enforcement —immediately thereafter reinitiated conversation with law
enforcement as to the offenses that led to defendant being detained. Further
discussion of defendant’s Miranda rights ensued, during which, at one point, the
law enforcement officer conducting the interview made a misstatement of law.
However, defendant questioned that statement, which the officer subsequently
corrected and clarified. Defendant also had the opportunity to review the written
form of the Miranda warnings multiple times following that incorrect statement of
law and ask further questions. Finally, prior to substantive questioning beginning,
defendant was explicitly asked “[d]o you want a lawyer at this time, yes or no,” to
which defendant replied “[a]t this time, no.”
Miranda has never required a verbatim recitation of warnings, but instead
that the warnings reasonably convey to the suspects his rights as required.
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989) .
Requiring that a misstatement of law, even if the statement is subsequently
corrected, automatically mandate suppression is an overreach of what Miranda
actually requires. Instead, we look towards whether the waiver was voluntary as
judged by the totality of the circumstances. See Fare v. Michael C. , 442 U.S. 707,
724–25, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2571 –72, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979). At the time of the
interview on April 18, 2022, defendant was 69 years old. The parties discussed
defendant’s rights for more than ten minutes before substantive discussion as to the
subject matter of the criminal investigation began. The written rights form was

3
reviewed by defendant numerous times, and that form clearly and accurately
delineates defendant’s rights. A review of the videotaped session indicates law
enforcement made clear that defendant was entitled to a lawyer and that if he could
not afford one, the public defender process would be utilized to provide him one.
In response to being asked whether he would like a lawyer at that time, defendant
answered with an explicit no.
For the reasons expressed herein, the district court’s ruling granting
defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed and this matter is remanded for further
proceedings.