STATE v. FRANKLIN (2020)

Reconsideration granted. The district court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress is vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. The district court is directed to afford defendant an opportunity to supplement his motion to suppress and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion, at which the State “shall have the burden of proving the admissibility of a purported confession or statement by the defendant” in accordance with La.C.Cr.P. art. 703(D). See State v. Smith, 409 So.2d 271, 272 (La. 1982).

I would deny this application for reconsideration. See, Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6.

I agree with the per curiam in granting reconsideration, vacating the district court's ruling, and remanding. I write separately to acknowledge – and reiterate – my view that, while Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6 prohibits reconsideration of a prior writ denial, an exception to this rule must exist in order to further the interest of justice in certain extraordinary circumstances where good cause is shown. See also Harris v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 2018-589 (La. 8/31/18), 251 So. 3d 397, 398 (Crichton, J., would grant reconsideration); Marable v. Empire Truck Sales of La., LLC, 2017-1469 (La. 11/17/17), 230 So.3d 212 (Crichton, J., would grant reconsideration). Such good cause has been shown here, and I therefore conclude the extraordinary circumstances at hand require that this internal operations rule yield in the interest of justice.

PER CURIAM:

Weimer, J., dissents and assigns reasons. Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. Crain, J., would deny.