State of Louisiana Versus Miguel Lopez

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
State of Louisiana

No. 26-KH-432

STATE OF LOUISIANA

versus

MIGUEL LOPEZ

IN RE MIGUEL LOPEZ
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
JACQUELINE F. MALONEY, DIVISION "D", NUMBER 11-1280

October 06, 2026

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

WRIT GRANTED; RULING REVERSED; MOTION IN
LIMINE GRANTED; MATTER REMANDED

On June 23, 2011, a Jefferson Parish Grand Jury indicted relator for the second
degree murder of his six-year-old daughter in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. On July
8, 2015, relator was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court
subsequently ordered relator committed to Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System
(“ELMHS”). As part of that order, the trial court required ELMHS to report when
the superintendent was of the opinion that relator “can be discharged or can be
released from probation, without danger to others or to himself [.]”

On May 22, 2019, the trial court granted relator’s conditional release from
ELMHS and placed him on supervised probation for five years, with the proviso that
the period of supervised probation may be extended each year after his completion
of the five-year term.

Over the years, relator sought modification of the terms of his conditional
release. On July 30, 2025, Community Forensic Services filed a Motion to Set
Review of Conditions of Release with the trial court. Following a hearing on August
7, 2025, the trial court denied the motion.

On September 5, 2025, relator, through counsel, filed a writ application with
this Court in which he sought review of the trial court’s August 7, 2025 ruling. On
January 8, 2026, this Court denied relator’s writ application. State v. Lopez, 25-412,
2026 WL 65054, at *1–2 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/8/26).

On April 28, 2026, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted relator’s writ
application, vacated the trial court’s judgment, and remanded relator’s case “for a
new hearing where evidence may be introduced and the proper legal standard
applied.” State v. Lopez, 26-179 (La. 4/28/26), 432 So.3d 118, 119 (per curiam).
The Louisiana Supreme Court specifically found:

The state must establish “that the committed person is dangerous to
others or dangerous to himself” by clear and convincing evidence.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 657.3(A)(2). At the August 7, 2025 hearing, the trial
court appeared to articulate a standard of “even the slightest
possibility” of dangerousness to constitute a sufficient showing by
the State.

The trial court abused its discretion in failing to require the state to
prove dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. The trial
court further erred in relying only on the crime of which the
defendant was found to have been not guilty, by reason of insanity,
as proof of his dangerousness. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 657.3(A)(2) (“In
satisfying its burden of proof, the state may not rely solely upon the
nature of the crime for which the committed person was found not
guilty by reason of insanity … .”).

Id. at 118–19.

On remand, on July 28, 2026, relator filed a new Motion for Modification of
Conditional Release Placement, requesting the following: 1) discharge from
Harmony Transitional Services (“HTS”) to a less restrictive community-based
housing placement as determined by the Office of Probation and Parole (“OPP”);
and 2) authorization to obtain gainful employment and other less restrictive terms as
determined by the OPP.

At a hearing on August 5, 2026, Kevin Carmouche, relator’s probation officer,
and Alana Bishop, the forensic district coordinator, testified. The trial court then
continued the hearing but also requested that relator produce the following

documents for its inspection before the hearing resumed: 1) documents showing
relator’s financial assets, including title documents showing if relator owns a home
in Texas and documents showing if relator owns property or businesses in Honduras
and the nature of the businesses; 2) all of relator’s medical records from 2011 to
present, including non-psychiatric records; and 3) information regarding relator’s
alleged “inappropriate relationship” with a former female HTS employee. The trial
court further requested that the State produce relator’s full rap sheet, including a
“Triple I,” as well as relator’s criminal history from Honduras, if available. The trial
court also requested that relator provide an update via e-mail on obtaining the records
that the trial court had ordered produced. In addition, the trial court indicated its
preference to review the medical records in advance of the next hearing, without first
being admitted into evidence. At this time, neither the State nor relator made an
objection.

On August 6, 2026, relator’s counsel e-mailed the trial court that the requests
for the documents had been made but the documents were unlikely to be ready before
the scheduled August 10, 2026 hearing.

However, on August 10, 2026, “[a]fter further consideration of the Court’s
request, and before the materials are viewed by the Court,” relator filed a Motion in
Limine Regarding Records Ordered Produced by the Court. Relator objected to the
trial court’s order for the production of documents on the following grounds: 1) the
order to produce documents from relator impermissibly shifts the burden of proof,
which conflicts with the decision issued by the Louisiana Supreme Court’s April 28,
2026 per curiam opinion in this case; 2) the order to produce documents was
improper as the trial court was acting as an advocate or party; 3) the documents
ordered to be produced are overbroad and irrelevant; and 4) the trial court reviewing
and considering these documents not first admitted as evidence is improper.

A hearing on the motion in limine took place on August 28, 2026. Following
relator’s arguments, Marianne Fletchinger, the regional attorney for the Louisiana
Department of Health, appeared in response to the trial court’s request for relator’s
medical records. Ms. Fletchinger explained the time-consuming nature of producing
all of relator’s medical records, dating back to 2011, given that the records were
stored on microfilm. Ms. Fletchinger also shared relator’s concerns that the trial
court was “conducting its own discovery” and further objected to the scope of the

request which included records that “don’t provide any insight into his present
dangerousness.”

The State initially questioned its standing in connection with the motion in
limine but ultimately opposed the motion, citing La. C.E. art. 611(A), which
provides that “the court, [] shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order
of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence.” The State also relied on the
provision in La. C.E. art. 614, which states: “The court, at the request of a party or
if otherwise authorized by legislation, may call witnesses, and all parties are entitled
to examine witnesses thus called.” The State further asserted that the trial court had
the authority to request the records pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 657.1(B), which
provides that in ordering a conditional release from a mental health facility, the trial
court “shall subject a conditionally released insanity acquittee to such orders and
conditions it deems will best meet the acquittee’s need for treatment, supervision,
and monitoring and will best serve the interests of justice and society.” Finally, the
State argued that the requested records were relevant given that relator was seeking
modification to his current placement.

At the close of the August 28, 2026 hearing, the trial court denied the motion
in limine, stating: “The Court maintains its request to review those documents
pursuant to Louisiana law, and specifically, Article 657.1, Subpart B.”

I. Discussion

Evidentiary rulings are subject to review for abuse of discretion. State v.
Perez-Espinosa, 23-111 (La. 1/28/23), 354 So.3d 644, 645 (per curiam).

La. C.Cr.P. art. 657.1 provides the criteria for conditional release, stating, in
relevant part:

A. At any time the court considers a recommendation from the
hospital-based review panel that the person may be discharged
or released on probation, it may place the insanity acquittee on
conditional release if it finds the following:
(1) Based on the factors which the court shall consider pursuant
to Article 657, he does not need inpatient hospitalization but
needs outpatient treatment, supervision, and monitoring to
prevent his condition from deteriorating to a degree that he
would likely become dangerous to self and others.
(2) Appropriate outpatient treatment, supervision, and
monitoring are reasonably available.

(3) There is significant reason to believe that the insanity
acquittee, if conditionally released, would comply with the
conditions specified.
(4) Conditional release will not present an undue risk of danger
to others or self, as defined in R.S. 28:2.

The statutory framework governing an insanity acquittee’s conditional release
further provides the trial court with the authority to impose “such orders and
conditions it deems will best meet the acquittee’s need for treatment, supervision,
and monitoring and will best serve the interests of justice and society.” See La.
C.Cr.P. art. 657.1(B). In 2024, the Louisiana Legislature enacted La. C.Cr.P. art.
657.3, establishing active supervised release for dangerous persons who are not
mentally ill. Specifically, the statute provides that the State may seek active
supervised release of a committed person based upon the committed person’s
continued dangerousness even if the committed person does not have a mental illness
as defined by La. C.Cr.P. art. 657.3, if both of the following conditions are met:

(1) The committed person was found not guilty by reason of
insanity for any of the following offenses or attempts to commit
any of them:
(a) Any crime punishable by death or by life imprisonment.
(b) Any crime that is either a crime of violence as defined by
R.S. 14:2(B) or a sex offense as defined by R.S. 15:541.
(2) The state proves by clear and convincing evidence that the
committed person is dangerous to others or dangerous to himself
as defined by R.S. 28:2. In satisfying its burden of proof, the
state may not rely solely upon the nature of the crime for which
the committed person was found not guilty by reason of insanity
and may not rely solely upon the diagnosis of any personality
disorder.

The trial court specifically cited La. C.Cr.P. art. 657.1(B) as the source of its
authority to sua sponte order production of unadmitted records. However, the plain
language of the relevant statutes does not support the trial court’s freestanding power
to order the production of records on its own motion. Also, comment (a) of the
official revision comments to La. C.Cr.P. art. 657,1 setting out the conditions for
discharge or release, states the following:

1
La. C.Cr.P. art. 657 provides:
After considering the report or reports filed pursuant to Articles 655 and 656,
the court may either continue the commitment or hold a contradictory hearing
to determine whether the committed person no longer has a mental illness as
defined by Article 657.3 and can be discharged, or can be released on probation,
without danger to others or to himself as defined by R.S. 28:2. At the hearing,
the burden shall be upon the state to seek continuance of the confinement by

This article provides flexibility in release procedures, to cope with
circumstances of individual cases, by allowing the court to act on
the basis of the application and reports filed, or to order a full
hearing to determine the propriety of the requested release. Further
flexibility in release procedures, and additional protection to the
public, is afforded by the provision authorizing the court to release
on probation, on such conditions as it determines to be necessary.
Probationary release, subject to continued supervision and double-
checking of the defendant’s condition and habits, is most significant
in this type of release; for there will be cases in which release is
justified only if the defendant is to be carefully supervised upon his
return to community life.

Thus, while the trial court has the statutory authority to order a hearing, the
information that the trial court may rely upon in its determination is meant to arrive
through the parties themselves, rather than compelling and considering unadmitted
documents before a hearing is held. As such, we conclude that the trial court erred
by relying on La. C.Cr.P. art. 657.1(B) in support of its request.

Furthermore, while La. C.E. art. 611 grants broad powers to the trial court
regarding “the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence,”
it does not allow the trial court to order and consider unadmitted evidence.

Finally, we conclude that the trial court’s order for the production of records
shifted the State’s burden of proof under La. C.Cr.P. art. 657.3. Specifically, the
trial court ordered relator to produce his bank account and property records as part
of its own inquiry to determine whether relator, who claimed to own property in
Texas and Honduras, suffered from “delusions of grandeur” given his confinement
since 2011, stating, “I would appreciate the opportunity to fulfill my duty to both
him and society to look at those to make sure that he is not actively hallucinating.”
However, La. C.Cr.P. art. 657.3(A)(2) also makes clear that “[i]n satisfying its
burden of proof, the state may not rely solely upon the nature of the crime for which
the committed person was found not guilty by reason of insanity and may not rely
solely upon the diagnosis of any personality disorder.” Thus, such documentation

proving by clear and convincing evidence that the committed person currently
has a mental illness and is dangerous, except as provided in Article 657.3. After
the hearing, and upon filing written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
court may order the committed person discharged, released on probation subject
to specified conditions for a fixed or an indeterminate period, or recommitted
to the state mental institution. A copy of the judgment and order containing the
written findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be forwarded to the
administrator of the forensic facility. Notice to the counsel for the committed
person and the district attorney of the contradictory hearing shall be given at
least thirty days prior to the hearing.

is not relevant to the trial court’s determination. In the same way, relator’s non-
psychiatric medical records, as well as documentation of an alleged “inappropriate
relationship,” are beyond the scope of the Supreme Court’s remand order in Lopez,
particularly when the hearing has yet to be concluded.

As such, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying
relator’s motion in limine after issuing an order, sua sponte, for the production of
unadmitted records in the absence of any statutory or jurisprudential authority.

II. Conclusion and Decree

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this writ application is granted, the
trial court’s ruling is reversed, relator’s Motion in Limine Regarding Records
Ordered Produced by the Court is granted, and this matter is remanded to the trial
court for further proceedings.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 6th day of October, 2026.

JGG
MEJ
JJM

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. TRAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 10/06/2026 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

26-KH-432
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Jacqueline F. Maloney (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr. (Respondent) Melanie A. Bray (Relator)
Darren A. Allemand (Respondent)

MAILED