State v. Walker
Also decided on this docket: La., March 12, 2004 869 So. 2d 802
State v. Walker, 877 So. 2d 99 (La. 2004).
The holding in the court’s own words
After conducting an independent review of the record, and considering the arguments of counsel, we conclude that the decision of the court of appeal does not require the exercise of our supervisory authority.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- State v. Jones 178 So. 3d 1075 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
- State v. Thomas 111 So. 3d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
- State v. Browhow 945 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
- State v. Baker 942 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Walker 853 So. 2d 746
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. After conducting an independent review of the record, and considering the arguments of counsel, we conclude that the decision of the court of appeal does not require the exercise of our supervisory authority. Accordingly, our order of March 12, 2004 is recalled as improvidently granted. 1 TRAYLOR, J., dissents and assigns reasons. . As noted by the court of appeal, "if the prosecution is able to draft a bill of information which validly charges Walker with a crime, it may be possible to reinstitute prosecution [within the time limits set by La. C.Cr.P. art. 572(A)(2)].” State v. Walker, 37, 493, p. 8, n. 6 (La.App. 2nd Cir.8/20/03), 853 So.2d 746, 751 .