Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Ronnie WILLIAMS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1984-05-25
Citations: 451 So. 2d 565
Docket Number: No. 84-KK-0590
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Ronnie WILLIAMS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 451
Pages: 565–566

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Ronnie WILLIAMS.
No. 84-KK-0590.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 25, 1984.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, charged by bill of informa-. tion with armed robbery, in violation of La.R.S. 14:64, moved in the district court to suppress the identifications made at a corporeal line-up conducted on November 3, 1983. The trial judge denied the motion after a hearing on February 22, 1984 and the Fourth Circuit has found "no error in the ruling. . . ." State v. Williams, 452 So.2d 182 (La.App. 4th Cir.1984). On defendant's application, we have stayed the proceedings before trial to review the judgments below.
The line-up in this case was conducted after a preliminary examination held on September 20,1983 marked the initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings against defendant. Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220, 98 S.Ct. 458, 54 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977); Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972); cf., Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970). However, at the hearing on the motion to suppress, the state failed to establish either that an attorney was present at the line-up or that defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to the assistance of counsel. Daigre v. Maggio, 705 F.2d 786 (5th Cir.1983); State v. Frisco, 411 So.2d 37 (La.1982); cf., United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1937, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967).
Accordingly, the state may not present at trial any evidence of the November 3 line-up. See, Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967). The ruling of the trial court is therefore reversed, the motion to suppress is granted, and this case is remanded for all proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.