State v. Durham
Also decided on this docket: La., March 24, 1994 635 So. 2d 226; La., March 11, 1994 634 So. 2d 387
State v. Durham, 634 So. 2d 848 (La. 1994).
The holding in the court’s own words
Furthermore, on reconsideration, we conclude that the application has merit.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Jackson 608 So. 2d 949
Opinion text
In re Durham, Joel; — Defendant(s); applying for reconsideration of this Court’s Denial of March 11, 1994; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “H”, No. 92-0960. Reconsideration granted; writ granted with order. In view of our continuing supervisory jurisdiction over this capital case, which has yet to be tried, we grant defendant’s application for reconsideration of this Court’s ruling of March 11, 1994. Furthermore, on reconsideration, we conclude that the application has merit. The trial court is ordered to prohibit the introduction, in the penalty phase of the trial, of evidence concerning the original charge in an unrelated matter, removed to federal court, when the defendant was permitted to plead guilty to a lesser charge. State v. Jackson, 608 So.2d 949, 954 (La.1992). DENNIS, J., not on panel.