Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

483 So. 2d 1007

Docket No. 86-KK-0223.

State v. Taylor

STATE of Louisiana v. Nick D. TAYLOR.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided March 7, 1986.

Reconsideration Granted; Writ Granted March 31, 1986.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1986-03-31

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1989

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“... former defense attorney may not be called as a witness concerning the gun....”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 502 So. 2d 537 - State v. Taylor

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-03-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Granted. The former defense attorney may not be called as a witness concerning the gun, without the defendant's consent. R.S. 15:475.

¶2BLANCHE, Justice, concurring.

¶3The attorney-client privilege covers information received by the lawyer from his client concerning the location of incriminating evidence. La.R.S. 15:475. While it does not immunize the evidence from production in a court of law, it is beyond question that knowledge of the location of the evidence in this case could only come from the defendant. This is information which may not be disclosed by counsel without violation of the attorney-client privilege. For that reason, I would not permit the state to call defendant's former counsel as a witness and permit it to question counsel concerning where he obtained the pistol.

¶4LEMMON, Justice, concurring.

¶5The fact of the location of the gun at the time the attorney came into possession is information obtained by reason of being relator's legal advisor. The gun, however, is admissible.

¶6DENNIS, J., would grant the writ and docket the case for argument. He does not join in the majority's order granted without oral argument, or a full opinion.

/483/so2d/1007 · .json · Public domain