Case ID: so2d_321/html/0317-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TATE, J., DIXON, J., CALOGERO, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Louisiana v. Ross S. HINKIE.
    No. 56904.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 24, 1975.
   In re: Ross S. Hinkie, applying for writs of Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus and Stay Order.

Writ denied. Showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

TATE, J.,

concurs, because the trial judge has discretion to have the defendant present at the preliminary hearing if only to preserve confrontation rights for such testimony to be used at the trial on the merits in the event of unavailability of witness. However, if the genuine issue here is to prevent suggestive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses, the trial court should issue such protective orders as will prevent such suggestive identification.

DIXON, J.,

dissents from refusal to grant. The issue is not whether defendant must be present at preliminary hearing. The record shows that he was present. The issue seems to be whether defendant, protected by constitutional rulings from suggestive identification before trial, must reveal his identity to state’s witnesses at a preliminary hearing, called to establish probable cause. It would be grossly unfair, and ground for reversal in event of conviction, if identity becomes an issue to force the defendant to reveal his identity to his accusers at a preliminary hearing.

CALOGERO, J.,

dissents. The trial court’s ruling effectively permits an imper-missibly suggestive identification and court’s reversal in the event this defendant is convicted and later appeals.