88-KK-1037 Precedential Processed

State v. Lee

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed September 23, 1988 · 531 So. 2d 254

Cited by

State of Louisiana v. Willie R. Pitts La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Pitts 87 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. King 951 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. McGinnis 917 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Becnel 904 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Donnaud 896 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Williams 866 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Simmons 845 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
State v. MM 802 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
State v. M.M. 802 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Callegari 773 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000

Opinion text

531 So.2d 254 (1988) STATE of Louisiana v. Charles LEE. No. 88-KK-1037. Supreme Court of Louisiana. September 23, 1988. PER CURIAM. Writ Granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed. The district attorney should be required to "permit or authorize" the defendant to inspect, copy, examine, test or reproduce documents and tangible objects "within the possession, custody, or control of the state", if the articles sought meet certain statutory criteria. La.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 718 (West 1981). The district attorney's obligation is subject to statutory limitations. Id.; La Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 723 (West 1981). However, the code does not limit or deny discovery on the basis of whether an article is contained in the district attorney's file. Therefore, if the district attorney has the power to permit or authorize the discovery of an article within the possession, custody, or control of the state that falls within the criteria of discoverability and does not fall within the statutory limitations on discovery, the court should order the discovery. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the Court of Appeal for its consideration and ruling applying the statutory rules as interpreted herein.