State v. Theriot, 369 So. 2d 708

DIXON, Justice,

concurs in granting the writ for the following reasons:

This is a complaint from the denial of a motion to disclose the ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍identity of a confidential informer and from the denial of a motion to quash because of a seven months delay from the date of the offense until the arrest and charge. Defendants were arrested August 2,1978 for a charge of selling phencyclidine to ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍Deputy Breaux at the house occupied by the two defendants on January 23, 1978. The deputy is supposed to have gone to the house with a confidential informer named Art who introduced Breaux to the two defendants.

The defense is that Breaux did not come ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍to the house on January 23, 1978, and there is some evidence to support this contention. At any rate, it is alleged that Art was a material witness and his identity should be made known to the defendants so they could have the ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍advantage of his testimony.

The allegation is made that this was a case of entrapment, but there is little argument to support that defense. However, no *709reason is suggested why the witness to the transaction should not be subject to summons by the defense. The ‍‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍defense is entitled to the benefit of Art’s knowledge and the state has no right to hide the identity of the witness,

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Theriot

Court Name: Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date Published: Mar 30, 1979

Citations: 369 So. 2d 708; 1979 La. LEXIS 8146; No. 64083

Docket Number: No. 64083

Court Abbreviation: La.