Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

680 So. 2d 1168

Docket No. 95-KH-2208.

State Ex Rel. Cormier v. State

STATE ex rel. Gregory CORMIER v. STATE of Louisiana.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided October 4, 1996.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1996-10-04

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“... Art. 930.8(A)(1) does not supply a specific time period, nor does it specify whether it requires a showing of due diligence by the petitioner or his attorney in attempting to procure new evidence. Instead, art. 930.8(A)(1) acts in concert with the general provision of art. 930.8(B), which allows for dismissal of both timely and untimely (but excepted) post-conviction-relief applications upon a showing of material prejudice to the state’s ability to respond to the allegations in the petition. That showing is to be made in “a hearing limited to that issue.” Thus, if relator in the instant case has demonstrated the existence of a fact of which he did not have knowledge, under the terms of the statute his claims would require a hearing in the district court as to what prejudice to the state’s ability to respond, if any, the delay has caused. Accordingly, I would grant relator partial relief by issuing an order remanding to the district court to determine: whether the relator’s claim meets the threshold tests of La.C.Cr.P. arts. 928 and 929, and whether the relator has proved that his claim rests on facts not known to him or his attorney. If the state did not show prejudice from the delay to its ability to respond to the petition’s allegations, the court would be required to adjudicate the merits of the relator’s claim. [Footnote omitted.]”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Greco, 699 So. 2d 504 - State v. Chapman

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-10-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2014

10 state decisions

70199620002010decided

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 →

¶1*1169 PER CURIAM.

¶2Writ granted; case remanded. Relator alleges that of his present constitutional claims (that the state suppressed material exculpatory evidence at trial in violation of the principles set out in Brady v. Maryland,373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and its progeny) rests on facts not known to him or his attorney and which did not become known to him until he obtained documents pursuant to the Public Records Act, R.S. 44:1 et seq. Relator therefore appears to have raised a claim which falls under La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1), which provides an exception to the three-year time limit for filing applications for post conviction relief.

¶3Accordingly, the district court is ordered to determine if relator's claim based on the facts not known both "allege[s] a claim which, if established, would entitle [relator] to relief" under La.C.Cr.P. art. 928 and also raises factual or legal issues which cannot "be resolved based upon the application and answer and supporting documents" under La.C.Cr.P. art. 929. If relator's claim based on facts not known meets the threshold tests set out in art. 928 and art. 929, the district court must hold a hearing pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1) and La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(B) at which it will determine: (1) whether relator has proved, or the state concedes, that his Brady claim rests on facts not disclosed to him or his attorney; and (2) if so, whether the state has been prejudiced in its "ability to respond to, negate, or rebut the allegations of the petition ... by events not under the control of the state which have transpired since the date of [relator's] original conviction...." In this context, the withholding of exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances may constitute an event "under control of the state" for purposes of L.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(B).

¶4If the state does not show prejudice from the delay, the court must proceed to an adjudication on the merits of relator's Brady claim.

¶5The district court is also directed to follow the procedure set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(F) if it "considers dismissing [the] application for failure to raise the claim" in an earlier application.

¶6WATSON, J., not on panel.

/680/so2d/1168 · .json · Public domain