92-KK-1772 Precedential Processed

State v. Williams

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed July 1, 1992 · 601 So. 2d 1374

Also decided on this docket: La., September 4, 1992 605 So. 2d 1084

Cited by

Peter Adams v. Entergy New Orleans, Inc. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
Rev. Errol Victor, Sr. Versus State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
Pauline Moss Rodock v. Brad Allen Pommier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Rodock v. Pommier 225 So. 3d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. McGill 213 So. 3d 1181 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State ex rel. M.J. 160 So. 3d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In Re Williams 29 So. 3d 1237 La. 2010
Augustine v. Department of Public Safety 15 So. 3d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Galliano 945 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Clark v. Matthews 885 So. 2d 1140 La. 2004
Brown v. Brown 877 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Augman v. City of Morgan City 864 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003

all 17 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Littleton 395 So. 2d 730
State v. Lukefahr 363 So. 2d 661

Opinion text

601 So.2d 1374 (1992) STATE of Louisiana v. Vernon WILLIAMS. No. 92-KK-1772. Supreme Court of Louisiana. July 1, 1992. Rehearing Denied September 4, 1992. *1375 PER CURIAM. The defendant's application is granted. The order of the court of appeal is vacated; the order of the trial court denying the motion to recuse is reinstated. Where the motion to recuse does not set forth affirmative allegations of fact stating valid grounds for recusation, the trial judge may overrule the motion without referring the matter to another judge. La. C.Cr.P. art. 674; State v. Littleton, 395 So.2d 730 (La.1981); State v. Lukefahr, 363 So.2d 661, 663 (La.1978), and authorities cited therein. The allegations contained in the State's motion to recuse represent impressions and conclusions drawn from the trial judge's participation as presiding judge in the trial of the defendant. Where the alleged bias or prejudice stems from testimony and evidence presented in the proceedings, the bias or prejudice is not of an extrajudicial nature as would warrant recusal. See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 , 86 S.Ct. 1698 , 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966). ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL VACATED; TRIAL COURT'S ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE REINSTATED. MARCUS and WATSON, JJ., dissent from order.