State v. Stancill
State v. Stancill, 476 So. 2d 810 (La. 1985).
Cited by
Criticized in 1
- Sherry Wedgeworth, Et Ux. v. Tynes E. Mixon, III, M.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
- Wedgeworth v. Mixon 184 So. 3d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
- Magee v. Pittman 761 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
- Cosie v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Ins. Co. 527 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- State v. Thorne 526 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Howard 447 So. 2d 475
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. Under State v. Howard, 447 So.2d 475 (La.1984), the court of appeal should have required the trial judge to conduct an in camera inspection of the statements in the light of the semen test results, rather than requiring the statements to be given to defense counsel. We therefore set aside the ruling of the court of appeal (insofar as it ordered the district attorney to furnish the statements to defense counsel) and remand the matter to the trial court for an in camera examination. If the trial judge finds no exculpatory material in the statements, the defense may seek review of that ruling, and the court of appeal may examine the statements as part of the review. Accordingly, the application is granted, and the matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to conduct an in camera inspection of the statements for exculpatory material in light of the sperm test results.