Case ID: so2d_572/html/1044-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LEMMON, J., MARCUS, J., LEMMON, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Louisiana v. Marlo HELMSTETTER and Derrick Mahone.
    No. 91-KK-0242.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 1991.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Writ of Mandamus, Supervisory and or Remedial Writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number 90-KW-0832; Parish of Jefferson 24th Judicial District Court Div. “C” Number 90-2789.

Denied. The trial judge did not order production of the prior criminal records of any witness whose security would be endangered until the witness testifies.

LEMMON, J.,

concurs and assigns reasons.

MARCUS, J.,

would grant to reconsider this Court’s rulings in State v. Laird, 551 So.2d 1310 (La.1989), and State v. Miles, 569 So.2d 972 (La.1990). State is not required to furnish defense with a list of its witnesses absent exceptional circumstances. Moreover, defense has no statutory right to rap sheets of state witnesses. However, state must disclose favorable evidence relevant to a key witness’ credibility prior to calling the witness to the stand. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). I would grant and docket case for argument.

LEMMON, Justice,

concurs in the denial of the application.

In the appropriate case this court should grant certiorari and reconcile our orders in State v. Laird, 551 So.2d 1310 (La.1989) and State v. Miles, 569 So.2d 972 (La.1990) with prior decisions in which entitlement to the names and addresses of witnesses for the prosecution was denied, State v. Loyd, 425 So.2d 710 (La.1982), at least in the absence of exceptional circumstances, State v. Walters, 408 So.2d 1337 (La.1982).

In the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction we may fashion a procedure, after briefing and argument in an adversarial process, perhaps allowing prior criminal records of state witnesses either to be subpoenaed for trial or to be produced in advance of trial if the judge determines in camera that the witnesses’ credibility is critical to the prosecution and the criminal record (or a portion thereof) would be admissible at trial (for example, as possible impeachment evidence), subject to a protective order concerning the identity of the witness if security problems are involved.