Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

556 So. 2d 47

Docket No. 89-KK-2759.

State v. Payne

STATE of Louisiana v. Roger PAYNE.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided January 12, 1990.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1990-01-12

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“capital and other felony cases must be allotted for trial to the various divisions of the court, or to judges assigned criminal court duty, on a random or rotating basis or under some other procedure adopted by the court which does not vest the district attorney with power to choose the judge to whom a particular case is assigned.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Gomez, State v. Kimmel

Relies on 551 So. 2d 1303 - State v. Simpson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-01-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2015

9 state decisions

50199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Granted. As this Court explicitly held on rehearing in State v. Simpson, 551 So.2d 1303 (November 17, 1989), to meet due process requirements, capital or other felony cases must be allotted for trial on a random or rotating basis, or under another procedure whereby the district attorney does not have the power to choose a judge for a particular case. Although the court *48 below modified the rules of the 21st JDC, the district attorney may still have the power to select judges by making unchecked motions for certain trial dates. Therefore, even the modified rules are not in compliance with Simpson. As a result, this court remands the matter to the 21st JDC for it to adopt procedures in line with Simpson, and for the setting of a new trial date for relator. Additionally, the finding that article 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional in its application in the 21st JDC is reversed. The rules adopted by the 21st JDC violate due process, however article 61 does not allow district attorneys to choose judges, it merely allows them to control criminal proceedings generally.

/556/so2d/47 · .json · Public domain