# State v. Migliore

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · March 27, 1972 · 261 La. 722

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692158

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph J. MIGLIORE
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** March 27, 1972
- **Citations:** 261 La. 722; 260 So. 2d 682; 1972 La. LEXIS 5173
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McCALEB
- **Judges:** Hamlin, Barham, McCaleb, Summers
- **Cited by:** 39 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/9692158

## Opinion text

McCALEB, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
Our decision today, following a ruling of the Mississippi Supreme Court, creates an exception for pretrial discovery in narcotic cases and this overrules (partially at least) our many opinions denying discovery in criminal cases where we have held to the view aptly expressed in State v. Hunter, 250 La. 295 , 195 So.2d 273 (1967), where, in commenting on our prior jurisprudence we stated that the holdings of this Court have “ * * * been dictated by vital considerations related to fair balance in criminal procedure and the protection of the public against the ravages of crime.”
The rationale of the decision in Jackson v. State of Mississippi, 243 So.2d 396 (1971), that “ * * * There is no good reason why the' defendant in a civil case should be entitled to more liberal right to tangible evidence in the possession of his adversary * * * than is a person under a serious criminal charge,” which the majority opinion approves, does not appeal to me. In my opinion, the comparison made by the Mississippi Court is inept because civil and criminal cases are not parallel procedure-wise. For discovery in criminal cases, unlike civil cases, is a one-way street favoring only the defendant who is brought to trial under every imaginable constitutional safeguard and is not required at any stage of the proceeding to come forward with any evidence, the burden being entirely on the State to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692158. Public record. Not legal advice.