Case ID: so2d_497/html/1385-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CALOGERO, J., \n      DIXON, C.J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Louisiana v. Roy K. HENNICK, et al.
    No. 86-KK-2057.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 5, 1986.
    Reconsideration Denied Jan. 23, 1987.
   In re: Hennick, Roy K.; Palmer, Kathy M.; Hollingsworth, Deborah L.; Applying for Writ of Certiorari; Parish of St. Bernard 34th Judicial District Court Div. “B” Number 104-230; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number K-5959.

Denied.

CALOGERO, J.,

assigns concurring reasons: I construe the court of appeal’s writ denial as indicating a considered examination of defendant’s writ application, a determination that defendant’s arguments are not so persuasive as to warrant the exercise of their supervisory jurisdiction, and a determination that defendant should have an opportunity to raise the issue anew on appeal if convicted. Relator’s “adequate remedy by appeal” in event of conviction, a phrase sometimes used by this Court in the distant past under similar circumstances, should perhaps better be that “defendant may raise his complaint anew in the event of conviction.”

DIXON, C.J.,

would grant the writ. The court of appeal has denied this application attacking a denial of a motion to suppress with the words “Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal.” There is no adequate remedy if relator is forced to a trial and appeal if the search or seizure is illegal. The court of appeal should decide the application on the merits.