State Of Louisiana VS Andre Young
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF 2017 NO. LOUISIANA KW 1340 VERSUS ANDRE In YOUNG SEP232017 Andre Re: Young, HIGGINBOTHAM, WRIT DENIED. nondisclosure, HOLDRIDGE, AND DENIED. Late STAY of has PENZATO, JJ. disclosure, favorable evidence it if reversal Rouge, Baton East of 19th writs, supervisory Parish Court, 10 - 14 - 0675. No. BEFORE: for applying District Judicial to impacted significantly well as defendant the as requires defendant' s the opportunity to present the material effectively in its case, defense the in evaluated of investigation not obligated defendant 11/ 18/ 16), La. the back at reasonable medical victim Our 120, or the writ when the question had We have could own is the with App. 2015 - 1919 relator medical its first reports that made treated Lake Hospital. relator La. relevant police been obtain denied, state included its state application, the of can s does furnish to be state' the as 2015 - 0427 ( writ aware 2015 the 142, In which Lady of diligence, has Ferguson, v. The conduct trial progeny already been 25, in its 282. has disclosure, indicated he So. 3d February since discovery his he for must evidence exculpatory to impact The evidence record. obligation or State So. 3d 210 that acknowledged records Brady 181 entire defense a information 18/ 15), its trial. favorable disclose of the of of the of to prepare diligence. 9/ Cir. defense under with reasonable 1st context and fairness disclosure obligation the relieve late the constitutional not fundamental the compromised on and for find obtained a that the wound to through victim' s records. ARP TMH Holdridge, in records should review COURT its allow and OF dissents J., If application. the state to stay investigate APPEAL, EPUTY FOR CLERK THE intends case - in- chief, a FIRST OF the COURT give then the medical CIRCUIT COURT and grant would to I use the believe defense records. the the relevant the writ medical trial court opportunity to
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
