STATE v. EDMOND (2022)

Writ application denied.

I agree with the majority's decision to deny this writ application. However, I write separately to highlight, again, the troublesome behavior of the prosecutor that has plagued these proceedings, both in the previous writ application arising from defendant's motion for a mistrial and now on direct review before this Court. While the use of an outrageous and disrespectful hypothetical during voir dire does not warrant a reversal and remand in this case, it nevertheless has no place in a first degree murder trial of a seventy year-old victim. “In our system of justice, we entrust vast discretion to the prosecutor in deciding which cases to pursue, what crimes to charge, and how to allocate limited resources.” In re Toups, 00-634 (La. 11/28/00), 773 So.2d 709, 715-716. Moreover, because the prosecutor is given such tremendous power and discretion, “he is also charged with a high ethical standard.” Id. As I stated previously, the prosecutor's insouciant and cavalier disregard for the seriousness of these criminal proceedings is in direct contravention to our responsibility to uphold our oath and abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct. In adhering to that obligation to maintain the highest degree of integrity, he must also be ever cognizant that he “represents the State, and the State demands no victims. It seeks justice only, equal and impartial justice․” State v. Edmond, Jr., 21-630 (La. 5/8/21), 315 So.3d 854, writ denied (Crichton, J., additionally concurring, citing State v. Tate, 185 La. 1006, 171 So. 108, 112 (1936)). Our system commands no less.

Hughes, J., would grant. Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. Genovese, J., would grant. McCallum, J., additionally concurs for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton. Griffin, J., would grant.