State Of Louisiana v. Easton Deondre Shelvin, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 09, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
EASTON DEONDRE SHELVIN, JR.
No. 2025-KK-00944
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Easton Deondre Shelvin, Jr. - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of
Certiorari, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Number(s) 22-2019-C,
Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) KW 25-00243;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 09, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J., dissents and would deny.
JLW
JDH
PDG
JMG
CRC
12/09/2025 "See News Release 053 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-KK-00944
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
EASTON DEONDRE SHELVIN, JR.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry
PER CURIAM
The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress a photo -identification
lineup finding it unduly suggestive. Subsequent to this ruling, defendant filed a
motion to prohibit the witness from identifying the defendant in open court at trial.
The trial court set the motion for a pre-trial hearing subject to certain restrictions, to
wit, defendant would attend the hearing by Zoom with his camera turned off. The
trial court reasoned that, given its prior suppression ruling, the State would be
required to show an independent source for the identification thus allowing the
witness to see the defendant at the hearing would be improper. The State objected
and sought supervisory review. The court of appeal reversed and, despite
recognizing the trial court’s discretion to impose measures to safeguard the fairness
of in-court identifications, held the witness must be allowed to testify and confront
the defendant at the pre -trial hearing to enable the State to meet its burden of
establishing an independent source.
Under the unique facts and circumstances of this case, we find the trial court
did not abuse its discretion. The presence of a defendant is not necessary to the
“making, hearing of, or ruling on a preliminary motion or application addressed to
the court.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 834(1). “Reliability is the linchpin in determining the
admissibility of identification testimony.” State v. James, 464 So.2d 299, 300 (La.
1985) (citing Manson v. Brathwaite , 432 U.S. 98, 114, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2253, 53

L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)). The trial court’s restrictions will not prevent the State from
proving the witness has a sufficient independent source of knowledge to permit the
in-court identification at trial. See Manson , supra (enumerating factors for
consideration include “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time
of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description
of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at his confrontation, and the time
between the crime and the confrontation”); State v. Morgan, 16-0550, pp. 1-2 (La.
5/13/16), 194 So.3d 591, 592 (enumerating three relevant factors: “(1) the prior
acquaintance of the witness with the accused; (2) the length of time the witness
observed the perpetrator before, during, and after the commission of the offense; (3)
the circumstances under which the observation was made, i.e., the illumination of
the scene, the witness’ physical capacities, and the witness’ emotional sta te at the
time of the observation”). Accordingly, defendant’s writ is granted, the ruling of the
court of appeal is reversed, and the trial court’s order is reinstated.

WRIT GRANTED; COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED; TRIAL COURT
RULING REINSTATED