Committee hearing in Louisiana

2014The Williams court found as follows: The transcript of the committee hearing reveals that Act 1130 was prompted primarily by two decisions of this Court, State v. McArthur, 97-2918 (La.10/20/98), 719 So.2d 1037 , and State v. Kennedy, 2000-1554 (La.4/3/01), 803 So.2d 916 .

2004The Williams court found as follows: The transcript of the committee hearing reveals that Act 1130 was prompted primarily by two decisions of this Court, State v. McArthur, 97-2918 (La.10/20/98), 719 So.2d 1037 , and State v. Kennedy, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/3/01), 803 So.2d 916 .

2014The Williams court found as follows: The transcript of the committee hearing reveals that Act 1130 was prompted primarily by two decisions of this Court, State v. McArthur, 97-2918 (La.10/20/98), 719 So.2d 1037 , and State v. Kennedy, 2000-1554 (La.4/3/01), 803 So.2d 916 .

2004The Williams court found as follows: The transcript of the committee hearing reveals that Act 1130 was prompted primarily by two decisions of this Court, State v. McArthur, 97-2918 (La.10/20/98), 719 So.2d 1037 , and State v. Kennedy, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/3/01), 803 So.2d 916 .

2018Presumably, the committee is applying the analysis of Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Chatelain , 573 So.2d 470 (La. 1991).

2007App. 2 Cir. 1/31/07), 950 So.2d 135, 138 , which noted, "law enforcement officers have the same right as the general public to approach the entrance of a home." In order to clarify the legislative intent behind the 2001 amendment, we obtained an audio CD of the committee hearing regarding HB 1944, the bill that led to the 2001 amendment of La.R.S. 14:40.1.

2004For example, the legislature just four years earlier in 1978 immediately reacted to the court's decision in State v. Neal, 347 So.2d 1139 (La.1977)(sequence requirement applies to habitual offender D.W.I. prosecutions) by adding an express proviso to the habitual offender provisions of the D.W.I. law stating that "[o]n a second conviction, regardless of whether the second offense occurred before or after the first conviction, the offender shall...." La.Rev.Stat. 14:98(C)(1); 1978 La.

2003In State v. Williams, 02-1030 (La.10/15/02), 830 So.2d 984, 986-987 , the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the transcript of the committee hearing of Act 1130 that enacted Article 412.2 and explained the purpose of the article as follows: Act 1130 was prompted primarily by two decisions of this Court, State v. McArthur, 97-2918 (La.10/20/98), 719 So.2d 1037 , and State v. Kennedy, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/3/01), 803 So.2d 916 .

1991For this reason, the Supreme Court found that due process had been violated. 543 So.2d at 915 .

1989Following the procedure set forth in Louisiana State Bar Association v. Marinello, 514 So.2d 447 (La.1987), the parties agreed to submit the matter to this court on the record as developed at the committee hearing, and in the underlying court proceeding, along with certain joint stipulations of fact which were not in dispute. 2 Thereafter, the committee unanimously recommended a two year suspension as the appropriate discipline.

1959In that case we observed: “Of course this ■will not deprive the defendant of his right to produce such testimony and evidence as *539 he may have, to further cross examine any witnesses who may have testified against him, and by compulsory process to produce any witnesses of his own who have not appeared in the case.” 231 La. at page 660 , 92 So.2d at page 573 .

1959In that case we observed: “Of course this ■will not deprive the defendant of his right to produce such testimony and evidence as *539 he may have, to further cross examine any witnesses who may have testified against him, and by compulsory process to produce any witnesses of his own who have not appeared in the case.” 231 La. at page 660 , 92 So.2d at page 573 .