No. K84-796 Precedential Processed

State v. Prestridge

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed August 20, 1984 · 457 So. 2d 1203

Cited by

Shawn Albe v. Luis S. Chavira, James P. Duffourc, Shawn P. Mitchell., Erlinda A. … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Palombo v. Palombo 643 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Design Associates, Inc. v. Charpentier 537 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Forman v. Belew 536 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Hermann v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co. 492 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Toups 486 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
State v. Eaton 483 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Birdsong 422 So. 2d 1135

Opinion text

PER CURIAM. The defendant in this case is charged with the crime of first degree murder and faces the possibility of the death penalty. The evidence presented with defendant’s writ application, which includes evidence that this case has already received extensive pretrial publicity, establishes a reasonable likelihood that defendant’s right to a fair trial will be substantially prejudiced by a hearing open to the press and public of defendant’s motion to suppress confessions, admissions or inculpatory statements. As stated in State v. Birdsong, 422 So.2d 1135 (La.1982): “... Our Code of Criminal Procedure has built-in safeguards not afforded to persons accused of lesser crimes which impose less severe penalties. Hence, we should be overcautious when considering the due process rights of a person accused of a capital offense. Defendant’s right to a fair trial can be protected from the adverse effects of pretrial publicity by simply closing the suppression hearing to the public and press who do not have an enforceable right to be present.” (footnote omitted). For these reasons, the ruling of the trial judge denying defendant a closed pretrial suppression hearing on the motion to suppress is reversed. Defendant’s motion to close the hearing to the public and press is granted. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.