Case ID: so2d_330/html/0294-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      SUMMERS, J., DIXON, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Louisiana v. Wilbur Joseph LELEUX, Jr.
    No. 57822.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 9, 1976.
    Risley C. Triche, Triche & Sternfels, Napoleonville, James A. McPherson, New Orleans, Emile Carmouche, Crowley, for defendant-relator, Wilbur Joseph Leleux, Jr-
    Frank T. Salter, Jr., Dist. Atty., Lake Charles, for respondent, State of Louisiana.
   In re: Wilbur Joseph Leleux, Jr. applying for Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus and Stay Order

Writ denied in part and granted in part:

Applicant’s assignment relative to the trial court’s denial of motion to suppress presents a serious issue under Aguil-lar v. Texas and decisions of this Court concerning the admissibility of evidence seized under search warrant. Nevertheless, the Court does not ordinarily interfere with the orderly processes of trial where there is an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of conviction. Writ is therefore denied as to this assignment.

Applicant’s assignment of error relative to denial of motion for subpoena ad testificandum directed to the State of Louisiana to produce or see to the production of the witness, John A. Jensen, Jr. at the bail hearing is meritorious. Applicant is entitled under Art. 731 of the La.C.Cr.P. to compel the attendance of witnesses in order to discharge his burden of proof under La.C.Cr.P. art. 313(2). The State of Louisiana and the district attorney of Calcasieu Parish are therefore ordered to produce at the hearing of defendant’s application for bail the witness, John A. Jensen, Jr. or take such steps, and do and perform all such acts as are necessary and proper to secure the attendance of the witness at the hearing on the application for bail.

SUMMERS, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be denied on all issues. The gratuitous statements in the majority per curiam relating to the denial of the motion to suppress are not supported by the application or the law. There is no proper showing to set aside the trial judge’s ruling on the question of issuance of subpoenaes. No opportunity has been accorded the trial judge to respond to the application in support of his ruling on this issue.

DIXON, J.,

concurs in ordering the production of the witness at the bail hearing, but dissents from the refusal to grant on the motion to suppress, being of the opinion that the search warrant clearly violated “Aguillar” requirements in the failure to disclose reliability of information that defendant participated in the crime.