Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit granted supervisory writs and reversed the district court’s ruling precluding Charles Fair from presenting self-defense during voir dire and at trial. The court held that the defense’s written motion to continue provided sufficient notice under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 390 and emphasized the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. A dissenting judge would have denied the writ based on untimely notice under Louisiana law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defense's written motion to continue trial provided sufficient notice that Fair intended to present self-defense under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 390.
- Whether the district court's exclusion of self-defense during voir dire and at trial violated Fair's constitutional right to present a defense.
Holdings
- The written motion to continue trial, which stated that newly obtained DNA evidence was significant to Fair's self-defense claim, was sufficient to place the State on notice that Fair intended to present self-defense at trial under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 390.
- The district court erred by precluding Fair from presenting the justification of self-defense during voir dire and at trial because Fair had a constitutional right to present a defense.
Key quotations
“The written motion to continue trial filed on August 5, 2025, wherein the defense noted the new DNA has significance to relator’s claim that he acted in self- defense, was sufficient to place the State on notice that relator intended to present the justification of self-defense at trial pursuant to La. Code Crim. P. art. 390.” (slip opinion)
“Furthermore, relator has a right to present a defense as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 16 of the Louisiana Constitution.” (slip opinion)
Factual background
Fair sought to present self-defense at trial and relied in part on newly obtained DNA evidence that he asserted was significant to his self-defense claim. In a written motion to continue trial filed August 5, 2025, the defense identified the significance of the DNA evidence to the self-defense claim. The district court nevertheless precluded the defense from presenting self-defense during voir dire and at trial.
Procedural history
Fair sought supervisory review of the district court's ruling in case No. 24-51. The First Circuit concluded that Fair's written motion to continue trial provided sufficient notice of his intent to assert self-defense and that he had a constitutional right to present that defense. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings; Judge Haggerty dissented and would have denied the writ.
Remand instructions
The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling allowing Fair to present the justification of self-defense during voir dire and at trial.