majority"> PER CURIAM.

Writ granted. The right of confrontation contained in the United States and the Louisiana Constitutions is not implicated in this pre-trial matter. See State v. Harris, 08-2117, p. 1 (La.12/19/08), 998 So.2d 55, 56. Moreover, the Louisiana Constitution protects the rights of victims of crime to refuse to be interviewed by the accused. La. Const, art. I, § 25. Accordingly, La. Rev.Stat. § 46:1844(0(3) provides that a defendant must show “good cause” at a contradictory hearing with the district attorney why a crime victim should be subpoenaed to testify at any pre-trial hearing.

On the showing made, the defendant has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification procedures used that would justify the production of the victims/witnesses at the preliminary hearing. See State v. Harris, 08-2117, p. 2, 998 So.2d at 56. Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the testimony of the police officers as to the identification procedures used and the descriptions given by the victims/witnesses is generally admissible at a preliminary hearing to determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification. La.Code Evid. arts. 104(A) and 1101(C)(1); State v. Shirley, 08-2106, pp. 5-7 (La.5/5/09), 10 So.3d 224, 228-29. Consequently, the ruling of the district court ordexdng the victims/witnesses to testify at the motion to suppress hearing in this matter is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress