State of Louisiana v. Jerome Lilly

[[COURTLISTENER_SUBOPINION {"id":"11209408","type":"010combined","part":"opinion","author":null,"source_field":"html_with_citations"}]]
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

 STATE        OF LOUISIANA                                                                 NO.     2025    KW     0862

 VERSUS


 JEROME       LILLY
                                                                                    NOVEMBER             26,     2025




In    Re:          Jerome         Lilly,                            for                        23rd
                                                   applying              supervisory  writs,

                   Judicial District Court,                        Parish of Ascension, No.  46199.



BEFORE:            McCLENDON,             C. J.,    GREENE AND              STROMBERG,       JJ.


            WRIT      GRANTED.             A criminal defendant has the constitutional
right       to present           a defense.          U.   S.    Const.       amend.    VI;       La.    Const.        art.
I, §    16;      Chambers v.         Mississippi,
410 U. S.     284,    302
,
93   S. Ct.    1038,
1049
,
35    L. Ed. 2d       297
(     1973).             Relator       showed    good        cause       for     not
filing written notice of his intent to raise the justification of
self- defense              at   trial,
                       and there is no indication that this was a
delay tactic that would prejudice the State. See La. Code Crim. P.
art.    390( 8).            Furthermore,            the         purpose       of    Article        390    is     to   put
the    State          on   notice     prior         to    trial        of    the    defendant' s          intent        to
raise       the    justification of                  self- defense.                Here,     the       record     shows
the State does not dispute that it was aware of relator' s intent
to argue         self- defense            at trial.
                                  Accordingly, the district court' s
ruling granting the State' s motion in limine is reversed and this
matter is remanded for further proceedings.

                                                                 PMC
                                                                 HG

                                                                 TPS




 URT        OF APPEAL,           FIRST      CIRCUIT

                                     11




                 TY    CLERK OF COURT
                  FOR      THE   COURT