STATE v. MEARE (2026)

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT VACATED AS PREMATURE

On March 12, 2026, Respondent, Cornell Meare (“Mr. Meare”), was indicted by a grand jury impaneled in Orleans Parish for the crimes of first degree murder and second degree cruelty to juveniles, violations of La. R.S. 14:30 and 14:93.2.3, respectively. Some months later, on July 16, 2026, counsel for Mr. Meare filed a motion requesting an ex parte hearing to determine whether Mr. Meare was indigent, thereby making him eligible to receive funds from the Orleans Public Defenders (“OPD”) to hire expert witnesses to aid in his defense.

On August 13, 2026, the district court held a hearing on the motion. OPD argued that, pursuant to newly-added La. R.S. 15:142(F)¹ , public defender funds can only be spent on public defender clients, positing that because Mr. Meare was represented by independent counsel, he did not qualify to benefit from any of those funds. Following, the district court granted Mr. Meare's motion and proceeded to conduct an ex parte hearing in chambers. In that hearing, Mr. Meare, Diana Mathews and Teshia Meare all testified as to Mr. Meare's indigent status.

After returning to open court, the presiding judge, noting that the date of the offense Mr. Meare was charged with predated the amendment to La. R.S. 15:142, ruled from the bench, finding Mr. Meare to be indigent and ordered OPD to pay for a forensic pathologist and clinical psychologist on behalf of Mr. Meare. Counsel for OPD represented to the court that OPD had no issue with Mr. Meare being declared indigent, but objected to the dispersal of OPD funds in an unspecified amount without Mr. Meare first filing an application. OPD then gave oral notice of its intent to file an application for supervisory writs to this Court.

OPD now argues to this Court that, because Mr. Meare did not adhere to the procedural directives found in La. R.S. 15:175 and 15:168, the district court's order for OPD to provide funding was premature. We agree.

Pursuant to La. R.S. 15:175(A)(d):

If the court makes the preliminary determination that the accused is or may be indigent, the court shall require the accused to make application to the office of the district public defender or an attorney appointed or under contract to provide indigent defender services, who shall inquire further into the accused's economic status and, upon determining that the accused is indigent, shall file a certification thereof, in such form as the court may require and without paying costs in advance, in the record of the proceeding or enroll as counsel.

In concert with that statute, the legislature clearly outlined further procedural necessities for a court to order OPD to provide funding for an expert witness on behalf of an indigent defendant in La. R.S. 15:168(E)(1)² :

No court shall order the payment of any funds administered by the office or district public defender for expert witnesses, or for any other reason unless the person makes an application in accordance with [La.] R.S. 15:175(A). If the district public defender or state public defender declines the application for expert witness funding, the matter may be fixed for a contradictory hearing that is closed to the public and without the presence of the prosecuting authority. All recordings and transcripts of the contradictory hearing shall be sealed. To require the payment of any expert witness fee, the applicant shall demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing and the court shall make specific findings as follows:

(a) The applicant is actually indigent.

(b) Private counsel of the applicant does not have funds that may be used for expert witnesses.

(c) The source of funding for private counsel is not available for expert witnesses.

(d) The applicant has demonstrated with a reasonable degree of specificity what type of expert is needed and the purpose of the expert.

(e) There is a reasonable probability that denial of the expert's assistance would result in a fundamentally unfair trial for the applicant.

Our reading of these statutes indicates that, pursuant to La. R.S. 175(A)(d), while it was entirely proper for the district court to make a preliminary determination of Mr. Meare's indigent status, once that finding was made, the court's role was to then order Mr. Meare to file an application with OPD or an attorney appointed or under contract to provide indigent defender services for further inquiry. As provided for in La. R.S. 15:168(E)(1), no court shall order public defender expert witness funds dispersed unless an application has been filed. The district court's August 13, 2026 ruling and order that did not comply with these express mandates was erroneously rendered. Accordingly, Relator's writ is granted, the district court's August 13, 2026 ruling is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

FOOTNOTES

1.   With an effective date of August 1, 2026, Paragraph F was added to La. R.S. 15:142 and now provides:It is the express intention of the legislature that all funds received through any state appropriation, any judicial district indigent defender fund as provided for in [La.] R.S. 15:168, and any funds received from local governments shall not be used for any purposes other than to provide for the administration of services and representation of public defender clients.

2.   Pertinent to this application, in State v. Jones, 25-00896 (La. 5/1/26), 432 So.3d 142, our Supreme Court found former La. R.S. 15:168(E)(3) to be unconstitutional where it provided that: “No court shall have jurisdiction to order the payment of any funds administered by the office or district public defender for expert witnesses, or for any other reason.” In response to that ruling La. R.S. 15:168(E)(1) was amended by Acts 2026, No. 769, § 1, effective August 1, 2026.

Judge Paula A. Brown