Court Opinion

ID: 9659382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:43:06.386951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:45.393670
License: Public Domain

WHIPPLE, J.,
dissenting.
|TIn my view, the facts of State v. Smith, 897 So.2d 710 (La.App. 1st Cir.2004), relied upon by the majority, are clearly distinguishable. As the State notes, Smith dealt with the issue of the admissibility and authentication of documentary evidence, not the issue presented herein, i.e., whether the use of a document to refresh the parole officer’s memory was proper. Moreover, the defendant herein did not challenge the authenticity of the document, which was identified by the parole officer as a record or report generated and kept by the office in the normal course of business, but instead entered a hearsay objection to the manner in which the officer was allowed to use (ie., to hold) the document when testifying.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court.