STATE v. BELL (2026)

Writ granted. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to continue the September 8, 2026 trial date. That ruling is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court to continue the trial date to allow defendant a reasonable time to obtain the necessary mental health records. Applicant's Motion to Stay the trial court proceedings is denied as moot.

I reluctantly join the majority in granting the continuance. However, the State has filed no opposition and the uncontested allegations that the Criminal District Clerk of Court failed to perform its duties are accepted as true. Therefore, the unfortunate result is mandated.

Defendant was arrested and charged with first-degree rape, aggravated kidnapping, and carjacking more than three years ago. It is extremely concerning that this Court has been forced to grant a third trial continuance due to systemic dysfunction at the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court.

In this case, defense counsel recognizes that he had a HIPPA waiver and the ability to order copies of his client's medical records directly for over a year, but he failed to do so. He advised that he made the “strategic decision” to use Subpoenas Duces Tecum, but he inexplicably then spent five months wresting with the Clerk's office trying to get them issued. This has the appearance of either orchestrated chaos to force this continuance or a serious lack of diligence in his representation.

I sympathize with the lower courts denying this continuance due to their frustration with prior delays particularly since much of this problem was caused by defense counsel. However, I am compelled to concur with this Court's Per Curiam since I find it would be a waste of judicial resources to try this case at this time. As defense counsel summarizes in his response, “Mr. Bell still cannot be forced to trial without those records simply on the ineffectiveness of his attorney.”

I agree with the shock expressed by Justice McCallum at the apparent ineptitude of the Orleans Parish Criminal Clerk's Office to properly issue routine subpoenas after multiple attempts. However, I am equally concerned about defense counsel's contribution to the necessity of a third continuance.

Instead of denying an appropriate continuance because of trial counsel's actions, a trial court should instead consider its obligation under Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(B)(3) to “initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyer for unprofessional conduct.” I consider these underlying facts and the response filed with the Fourth Circuit to provide an ample basis for an investigation by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

PER CURIAM

Weimer, C.J., concurs for the reasons assigned by McCallum, J. McCallum, J., concurs and assigns reasons. Cole, J., concurs and assigns reasons. Burris, J., would deny.