STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JOSHUA STEWART (2026)

Relator, the State of Louisiana (the “State”), seeks review of the district court's April 15, 2026 ruling, which denied the State's motion for reconsideration of the court's order to provide Respondent, Joshua Stewart (“Respondent”), with a copy of the redacted video depicting the witness picking Respondent out of a photo lineup. For the following reasons, we grant the State's writ, reverse the district court's ruling and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this writ opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 23, 2025, the State filed a bill of indictment charging Respondent with one count of second degree murder with a firearm, one count of obstruction of justice and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On November 3, 2025, Respondent entered a plea of not guilty to all charges. In November 2025, the State tendered initial discovery to defense, which redacted witness name(s). On January 22, 2026, new counsel enrolled on behalf of Respondent and after review of the record learned that he was allegedly identified by means of a video recorded photo lineup (the “video”).

In light of this, on February 2, 2026, Respondent filed a motion for supplemental discovery and renewed motion for discovery. Therein, Respondent sought all documentation and recordings associated with all identification procedures. After communication with the State, Respondent was informed that the State was refusing to tender a copy of the video. On March 17, 2026, the parties appeared before the district court for a hearing. At the hearing, Respondent filed a motion for supplementary discovery related to the identification procedure, an objection to the State's discovery redaction and a motion for unredacted discovery. Respondent averred that the State's discovery responses redacted the full names and identifying information for witnesses related to the identification of the Respondent as the perpetrator of the homicide. He argued the State provided no reason for the redaction and may only redact when the safety of the witness is compromised by disclosure. On the same date, the State provided the district court with the video for its review.

On March 19, 2026, the district court ordered the State to provide Respondent with the video with the caveat that it must first blur the face of the witness and redact 00:40 through 00:54 of the video. The State filed a motion to reconsider the order compelling disclosure of the video. The State maintained that even with the redactions ordered by the district court, the identity of the witness could be discerned by the witness's voice and manner of speaking; physical characteristics; and contextual clues that reveal the witness's location during the offense. On April 15, 2026, the district court denied the State's motion to reconsider and the State sought writ.

DISCUSSION

In this writ, the State does not refute that a lineup procedure is generally discoverable under the criminal procedure rules.¹ Rather, the State contends that the protection of a witness to crime is a great concern. See State v. Weathersby, 09-2407, p. 3 (La. 3/12/10), 29 So.3d 499, 501. While acknowledging that the district court altered the video ² , the State avers La. C.Cr.P. art. 729.7 governs and argues that the district court failed to follow the procedures required by law. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 729.7 provides that:

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the district attorney or the defendant may delete or excise from any information required to be disclosed herein any information which identifies a witness if such party believes the witness's safety may be compromised by the disclosure. If a party objects to the deletion or excision, he must do so by written motion. The court shall maintain the deletion or excision if, at an ex parte proceeding which shall be recorded and maintained under seal, the party excising or deleting such information makes a prima facie showing that the witness's safety may be compromised by the disclosure.

B. If the information excised by a party includes the substance, or any part thereof, of any written or recorded statement of the witness, that party must provide the excised substance, or any part thereof, to the other party immediately prior to the witness's testimony at the trial.

C. If a judge finds that the party excising or deleting such information has failed to present prima facie proof to support the deletion or excision of information related to a witness, then upon the motion of either party, the court shall order an automatic stay of all matters related to the disclosure of information about the witness and maintain all proceedings under seal during the time while the moving party seeks supervisory review to the appropriate reviewing courts with appellate jurisdiction, including the Louisiana Supreme Court.

D. The rules of evidence shall not be applicable to the ex parte proceedings conducted pursuant to this Article.

In the case sub judice, the district court redacted information from a discoverable document based on its concern for the witness's safety. Because the district court believed that the redactions were necessary, it was required to hold an ex parte proceeding, recorded and maintained under seal, at which the State must make a prima facie showing why the redacted information should not be disclosed to Respondent. Therefore, the district court erred in maintaining the redaction and ordering the State to provide Respondent with a copy of the video without holding the required ex parte proceeding required by La. C.Cr.P. art. 729.7.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the State's writ is granted, the district court's April 15, 2026 ruling is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this writ opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 718 provides:Subject to the limitation of Article 723 of this Code, and except as otherwise prohibited by law, upon written motion of the defendant, the court shall order the district attorney to permit or authorize the defendant to inspect and copy, photograph or otherwise reproduce law enforcement reports created and known to the prosecutor made in connection with the particular case, and to permit or authorize the defendant or an expert working with the defendant, to inspect, copy, examine, test scientifically, photograph, or otherwise reproduce books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings, places, or copies or portions thereof that are within the possession, custody, or control of the state, and that are intended for use by the state as evidence in its case in chief at trial, or were obtained from or belong to the defendant.

2.   After review of the redacted video, we note that: (1) the witness's voice is minimally distorted; (2) the witness reveals identifying information at timestamp 8:05-8:15; (3) portions of the witness's body are visible throughout the video; (4) the video depicts identifying information that can lead to location; and (5) the witness is seen exiting the vehicle at or near timestamp 8:22.

Judge Paula A. Brown

LEDET, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT