Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Herschel STERLING
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1979-10-08
Citations: 376 So. 2d 103
Docket Number: No. 65047
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Herschel STERLING.
Judges: TATE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 376
Pages: 103–107

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Herschel STERLING.
No. 65047.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Oct. 8, 1979.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1979.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Marvin Opo-towsky, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-relator.
Terrance J. Powers, Bachmann, Weltchek & Powers, Robert Glass, Glass & Reed, New Orleans, for defendant-respondent.

Opinion:
MARCUS, Justice.
Herschel C. Sterling was charged by bill of information on May 2, 1979, for having committed the crime of aggravated battery (a felony) on April 12, 1979, in violation of La.R.S. 14:34.
On defendant's motion, a preliminary examination was held before the magistrate court on May 11,1979, at which hearing the state presented no evidence of probable cause to charge defendant and conceded his right to be released from custody without bail. However, the state noted that the charge had been accepted and that the state intended to proceed with the prosecution on the pending information. The magistrate, finding no probable cause, released defendant from .custody without bail.
Defendant filed a second motion for a preliminary examination in the criminal district court, contending that he had not been afforded a hearing to which he was entitled under La.Const. art. 1, § 14 (1974). On June 8, 1979, a preliminary examination was held and again the state presented no evidence of probable cause. The district judge held that the state must produce witnesses at the preliminary examination in order to fully satisfy defendant's constitutional right to a preliminary examination. We granted the state's application to review the correctness of the trial judge's ruling.
La.Const. art. 1, § 14 (1974) provides:
The right to a preliminary examination shall not be denied in felony cases except when the accused is indicted by a grand jury.
La.Code Crim.P. arts. 291-298 and 386 implement the right to a preliminary examination. Art. 294 provides in pertinent part:
At the preliminary examination the state and the defendant may produce witnesses, who shall be examined in the presence of the defendant and shall be subject to cross-examination. The defendant may also testify, subject to cross-examination.
Art. 296, which defines the scope of a preliminary examination, provides in pertinent part:
If the defendant has not been indicted by a grand jury for the offense charged, the court shall, at the preliminary examination, order his release from custody or bail if, from the evidence adduced, it appears that there is not probable cause to charge him with the offense or with a lesser included offense. If the defendant is ordered held upon a finding of probable cause, the court shall fix his bail if he is entitled to bail.
Thus, the state may produce witnesses at the preliminary examination to show that there is probable cause to charge defendant with the offense or with a lesser included offense. If the evidence adduced at the preliminary examination fails to disclose probable cause, art. 296 requires the court to order defendant's release from custody or bail. Such a release, however, does not have the effect of a judicial dismissal of the pending information, since it merely releases defendant from the inconvenience of custody or bail, and the district attorney must then decide whether the defendant will be brought to trial or the charge dismissed or whether a grand jury indictment will be sought. See Official Revision Comment (c) to art. 296. Moreover, discharge of a defendant after preliminary examination does not preclude the subsequent filing of an indictment, information, or affidavit against him for the same offense. La.Code Crim.P. art. 386. In other words, a preliminary examination does not determine the validity of the charge brought against a defendant, but rather determines whether or nor there is probable cause to deprive the defendant of his liberty. See State v. Jenkins, 338 So.2d 276 (La.1976).
In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), the Supreme Court held that "the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest." However, the Court was careful to point out that the fourth amendment addressed detention pending further proceedings, i. e., pretrial custody; it does not require a judicial review of the decision to prosecute by information.
In sum, where the evidence adduced at the preliminary examination fails to disclose probable cause to charge defendant with the offense or with a lesser included offense, the court shall order his release from custody or bail. La.Code Crim.P. art. 296. The same result is reached where the state offers no evidence of probable cause at the preliminary examination, i. e., defendant will be ordered released from custody or bail. Where, as here, the state offers no evidence of probable cause, a defendant's constitutional right to a preliminary examination will be fully satisfied. Hence, defendant has no cause to complain. Accordingly, the trial judge erred in requiring the state to produce witnesses at the preliminary examination. We must reverse.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the ruling of the trial judge is reversed and set aside and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.
TATE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, and assigns reasons.
CALOGERO, J., joins in TATE, J.'s partial concurrence and partial dissent.
DENNIS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons assigned by TATE, J.
. The assistant district attorney refused to obey the court's order to produce witnesses and the court held him in contempt and ordered him imprisoned. We denied the state's application for supervisory writ, noting that the assistant district attorney could either call witnesses for a preliminary examination or apply for a supervisory writ on the validity of the judge's order. State v. Meyer, 372 So.2d 572 (La.1979).
. 373 So.2d 533 (La. 1979).