# State v. Brown

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · September 13, 2016 · 201 So. 3d 240

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4829342

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Louisiana v. David BROWN
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** September 13, 2016
- **Citations:** 201 So. 3d 240; 2016 La. LEXIS 1805
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Crichton
- **Judges:** Crichton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4829342

## Opinion text

CRICHTON, J.,
additionally concurs and assigns reasons:
hi agree with the Court’s decision to deny this writ application. For the reasons I stated previously, State v. Brown, 16-0274 (La. 4/22/16), 192 So.3d 720, 722 (Crichton, J., concurring), ex parte proceedings should be invoked in good faith only in very limited circumstances. In response to this Court’s September 10, 2016 Order, the district court recognized its previous rulings were an “incorrect application of Toucket” Written Reasons for Maintaining Certain Documents Under Seal at 3, State v. Brown, (No. 0000-C-520401) (emphasis removed); see also State v. Touchet, 93-2839 (La. 9/6/94), 642 So.2d 1213 . But one error should not beget another error. Thus, I agree with the district court’s belief that further disclosure to the State of documents maintained under seal would be fundamentally unfair to the defendant. Nonetheless, I write separately to emphasize that a broad interpretation of Toucket is at odds with our system of criminal justice, which should be adversarial and open to the public.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4829342. Public record. Not legal advice.