STATE v. HONORE (2023)

Stay lifted. Writ application granted. See per curiam.

Writ granted; stay lifted. The court of appeal correctly determined that the district court erred in excluding the State's DNA and fingerprint evidence. We reverse the ruling of the court of appeal only to the extent it found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of a continuance. Under the circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to continue. See La. C.Cr.P. arts. 707 et seq.; see also La. C.Cr.P. art. 713 cmt. a. The trial court's ruling is hereby vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings and the setting of a new trial date that will afford the defendants additional time to respond to the State's DNA and fingerprint evidence. The stay previously issued by this court is hereby lifted.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

I concur in the conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the joint motion for a continuance under the facts and circumstances of this case. The request to continue this matter stems from the State's late disclosure of DNA and fingerprint evidence. In exchange for an agreement by defendants to waive any objection to the State's evidence based on late discovery, the State agreed to a joint motion to continue the trial, which is the first trial setting. Rather than accept the joint motion for continuance, the trial court ruled that the fingerprint and DNA evidence would be inadmissible at trial. The court of appeal, correctly in my view, reversed the trial court decision to exclude the evidence, but the consequence of that reversal without also reversing the denial of the joint motion for continuance is the possibility that defendants may be forced to trial without sufficient time to respond to the evidence, rendering any resulting convictions vulnerable to challenge, which will only delay resolution.

The joint motion to continue under the circumstances reflects a concern by both the State and the defense that the case is not in a proper posture to proceed to trial at this time. While I appreciate the trial court's apparent concern that this case be resolved as expeditiously as possible, a concern shared by all in the criminal justice system, the interests of the victim's family in closure and of the defendants interests in a speedy trial must be weighed and balanced. In the final analysis, a brief continuance–a continuance that assures that both the State and the defendants are adequately prepared to proceed with trial–strikes the appropriate balance and averts potential errors which might, at a later date, require a reversal and retrial. The ultimate goal of a trial is a just result which cannot be achieved at this point in the proceedings.

I dissent for the reasons assigned in my dissent in State v. Watson, 22-00719 (La. 5/1/22), 338 So.3d 1169.

Weimer, C.J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons. McCallum, J., dissents.