Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Relator
It 8 See also People v. Valdez, 281 P.3d 924, 958 (Cal. 2012) (ex parte proceedings are “permissible if compelling reasons justify them”) (citations and quotation marks omitted); State v. Harris, 245 So.3d 1036, 1037 (La. 2018) (per curiam) (ex parte hearings “are generally disfavored with a few exceptions;” “in order to deviate from the general rule of open and contradictory hearings, there must be a showing of good cause”); Barnes v. Whittington, 751 S.W.2d 493 , 495 n. 1 (Tex. 1988) (Texas rules and case law permit ex parte communications only in extraordinary, emergency situati…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hampton
See State v. Harris , 18-KP-0686 (La. 6/15/18), 245 So.3d 1036 (Crichton, J., concurring, noting that defendant's generic allegation of prejudice did not rise to the level necessary for an ex parte hearing for public funds for a Miller hearing); See also State v. Pascual , 16-KP-2167 (La. 6/29/17), 222 So.3d 35 (Crichton, J., concurring, noting that "neither Miller nor Montgomery expressly requires government funding for an expert witness in every instance...." and "the necessity of an expert witness should be determined on a case-by-case basis).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Martin G. LEMOINE
v.
Martin G. LEMOINE
No. 2017–K–1984.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jun 15, 2018.
245 So. 3d 1036
Crichton, Genovese, Grant, Reasons.
Published
GENOVESE, J., would grant.
CRICHTON, J., would grant and assign reasons:
While it appears defendant committed the crime of theft, as I noted previously in my dissent to State v. Lemoine , 15-1120 (La. 5/3/17), 222 So.3d 688, even the precise amount of that theft cannot be ascertained beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the evidence presented by the State. Therefore, I would grant the defendant's application and enter an order of acquittal.