State v. Nunez
State v. Nunez, 174 So. 3d 105 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Reed 653 So. 2d 1176
- State v. Payne 556 So. 2d 47
- State v. Simpson 551 So. 2d 1303
- State v. Huls 676 So. 2d 160
Opinion text
LANDRIEU, J., concurs with reasons. hi agree with the majority that the allotment process in the instant case violated the defendant’s right to due process. I write separately to note that the Louisiana Supreme Court jurisprudence distinguishes between a defendant who challenges the allotment process prior to trial and one who challenges the allotment of his case on appeal, post-conviction. A defendant challenging a process of random allotment prior to trial need not prove actual prejudice but need only establish that the prosecuting authority has the ability to influence the allotment process. See, e.g.; State v. Reed, 95-0648 (La.4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176 (per curiam); State v. Payne, 556 So.2d 47 (La.1990); *121 State v. Simpson, 551 So.2d 1303 (La.1989) (per curiam). See also, State v. Huls, 95-0541 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/29/96) , 676 So.2d 160 . I further agree with the concurring opinion of Judge Tobias that the proper procedural vehicle by which to challenge the allotment of a criminal case is not a motion to quash.