86-K-1133 Precedential Processed

State v. Miller

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed October 31, 1986 · 496 So. 2d 1030

Cited by

New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC v. City-Parish of East Baton Rouge La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
State v. Taylor 985 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
French Quarter Citizens v. City Planning 763 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
A to Z Paper Co., Inc. v. Carlo Ditta, Inc. 720 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
PALM-AIR CIVIC ASS'N v. Syncor Intern., Corp. 709 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Sterling 670 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Harrison 588 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Washington 522 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Washington 522 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988

Opinion text

496 So.2d 1030 (1986) STATE of Louisiana v. Troy MILLER. No. 86-K-1133. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 31, 1986. Denied. CALOGERO, J., additionally concurs in the denial of the writ. The trial court erred in sustaining the state's hearsay objections when defense counsel questioned the police officer about the initial descriptions of the perpetrators given by the eyewitness to the victim's murder. Nevertheless, our independent review of the record, prompted by our concern over this question, shows that defense counsel's cross examination of the witness regarding her own descriptions developed information that substantially impeached her identification of defendant as the trigger man in the murder. The discrepancies may have contributed to the jury's determination to spare defendant's life in this case. With the witness already partially impeached by her own testimony, and with no evidence from the pre-trial hearings that she had given any different descriptions, the trial court's erroneous ruling does not appear to have significantly impaired counsel's ability to test the witness' identification beyond the in roads he had already accomplished.