Case ID: so2d_533/html/0345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CALOGERO, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy LEDET and Wayne R. Crouch.
    No. 88-CC-2390.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 28, 1988.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1989.
   In re Ledet, Timothy; Crouch, Wayne R.; — Defendants); applying for supervisory/remedial writs; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 148646; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW88-0739.

Granted. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that relator willfully disobeyed a lawful order of the court. La.C.Cr.P. art. 23; In re Harris, 493 So.2d 1199 (La.1986). Relator could have reasonably believed that the court’s setting a hearing on the request for a protective order stayed the effect of the deposition notice and subpoena duces tecum pending the hearing; otherwise, the hearing would have been rendered moot.

ON REHEARING

IN RE: Taylor, Ginger; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s order of November 28, 1988, 9th Judicial District Court, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal No. KW88-0739, Rapides Parish

Rehearing denied.

CALOGERO, J.,

would grant rehearing regarding the alleged contempt by Wayne R. Crouch. Attorney Crouch was told by deposing counsel one hour before the scheduled deposition essentially that Trooper Le-det’s appearance was required at 1:00 pm on April 4, 1988, and that non-appearance would be dealt with harshly. Crouch thus had reason to believe that counsel and the deposition reporter would be standing by in counsel’s office. Therefore, when Judge Lee told Crouch by telephone at 1:15 pm that the setting of the protective order did not stay the deposition of Ledet, nor the effectiveness of the subpoena duces tecum, Crouch had a duty to call opposing counsel and advise that he and his client would appear at the deposition just as soon as they could get to counsel’s office. Not doing at least that after a telephone communication with the judge is the evidence which I believe supports the district judge’s finding Crouch guilty of contempt.