State Of Louisiana v. Arial Valencia-lacayo

Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 18, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
ARIAL VALENCIA-LACAYO
No. 2025-KK-01296
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Orleans Civil, Criminal District Court Number(s) 565- 888, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2025-K-0541;
_ _ _ _ _ _
October 18, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., Dissents and would deny the writ.
Crain, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by Justice Cole.
Griffin, J., Dissents and would deny the writ.
Guidry, J., Dissents and would deny the writ.
Cole, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
JLW
JBM
10/18/2025 "See News Release 047 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-KK-01296
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
ARIAL VALENCIA-LACAYO
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans
Civil
PER CURIAM.
Writ granted. A trial court is afforded great discretion when ruling on a motion to
suppress, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent abuse of that discretion. State v.
Wilder, 09-2322, p. 2 (La. 12/18/09), 24 So. 3d 197, 198. “When a trial court makes
findings of fact based on the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the
witnesses, a reviewing court owes those findings great deference, and may not
overturn those findings unless there is no evidence to support those findings.” State
v. Thompson, 11-0915, pp. 13-14 (La. 5/8/12), 93 So. 3d 553, 563 (quoting State v.
Wells, 08–2262, p. 4 (La.7/6/10); 45 So. 3d 577, 580).
In this matter, after the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court issued
a per curiam, observing that, “[a]s the trier of fact,” it had “to determine the
credibility of witnesses and the weight their testimony deserves.” Finding the
witnesses in this case to b e credible, the trial court found sufficient information to
establish probable cause. Based on the record before us, we find no abuse of the trial
court’s discretion and we find the court of appeal erred in substituting its findings
for those of the trial court. Accordingly, the court of appeal’s ruling is reversed, and
the trial court’s judgment denying the motion t o suppress is reinstated. The case is
remanded to the district court for further proceedings