Court Opinion

ID: 9659591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:50:14.985887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:09.696762
License: Public Domain

EZELL, J.,
dissents.
U must respectfully dissent from the majority. The majority in this matter fail to recognize that Article 126 applies to an incident where one has made a previous statement under oath and then makes an inconsistent statement, again under oath at the time the second statement is made.
Article 126.1 does not require that one be under oath. This article stands alone and it is not necessary for one to look at Article 126 for support, due to the fact that Article 126 is dealing with statements under oath.
I would follow the ruling by the Second Circuit in State v. Marshall, 424 So.2d 423 (La.App. 2 Cir.1982) that was authored by the Honorable Pike Hall.