Court Opinion

ID: 9697194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:08:24.419251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:41.216613
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree the record does not show defendant was threatened with an habitual criminal charge if he did not plead guilty, and I agree Bordenkircher v. Hayes, - U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978), holds such a threat does not alone infringe due process under the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution.
However, defendant also relies on la. Const. Art. I § 9, which is a state guarantee of due process. We are not bound by Bor-denkircher in applying our state constitution. In an appropriate case we might well desire to adopt the position of the four dissenting justices in Bordenkircher in construing the state due process clause. This is not such a case because the record does not show the alleged threat or its circumstances. Consequently it is not necessary to decide the state constitutional issue, and I take it we are not deciding it today.