The case involves a dispute over the succession of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., between Mary Hotard Becnel as independent executrix and Camilo K. Salas III. The proceeding reached the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal following an initial ruling in the trial court. The appellate court considered an application for rehearing of a prior decision. It denied the rehearing without stating any reasons for the denial.
This case concerns a succession proceeding in which defendant Camilo K. Salas III sought a jury trial and a continuance of the August 18, 2025 trial date. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury demand and denied the motion to continue. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal granted the defendant's supervisory writ, reversed both rulings, reinstated the jury request, granted the continuance, and remanded the matter. The court found that the trial judge had twice failed to issue a required written scheduling order under La. C.C.P. art. 1551(B) following conferences, which constituted an abuse of discretion given the need to avoid surprise and ensure orderly case management; additionally, no jury bond order had been issued, so the defendant had no opportunity to comply with bond requirements.
The case involves a defendant seeking supervisory review of a trial court's decision, made on its own motion, to reopen discovery in a succession proceeding 18 months after the original deadline had passed. The appellate court denied the writ, finding that trial judges possess broad discretion to regulate pretrial discovery and to modify their own scheduling orders. The panel concluded that the circumstances did not present an extreme case requiring appellate intervention and therefore declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction.
The case involved defendant Damon Stephney's appeal of his conviction for aggravated burglary under Louisiana law, following a jury trial in Jefferson Parish where he was found guilty as charged. Stephney raised multiple assignments of error, including denial of a continuance, admission of hearsay statements from a co-defendant, insufficient evidence, denial of a motion to reconsider an enhanced sentence, and denial of motions for a new trial (including one based on newly discovered evidence). The Court of Appeal found these claims without merit and affirmed the conviction. However, due to a patent error, it vacated the habitual offender adjudication and the resulting enhanced 45-year sentence, reinstated the original 30-year sentence, and remanded for further proceedings.
The case involved Eric Maxwell, who was charged with and convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon after a police officer observed him with a handgun during a stop prompted by suspicious behavior near a store. Following a prior reversal and remand by the Louisiana Supreme Court, the trial court conducted a Batson hearing and accepted the state's race-neutral explanations for its peremptory challenges to African-American jurors, finding no equal protection violation. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence after reviewing the Batson ruling and correcting patent sentencing errors regarding mandatory restrictions and a fine under La. R.S. 14:95.1, while overruling prior precedent on responsive verdicts for concealed weapons. The decision rested on the sufficiency of the state's explanations for juror strikes and statutory provisions that automatically corrected some sentencing omissions.
The case concerns the Louisiana Bar Foundation's appeal of a trial court judgment denying a recommended cy pres distribution of residual settlement funds from a class action arising out of a train car leakage incident. After settlements were paid, the Special Master recommended allocating 10% of the remaining funds to the LBF (along with other distributions), but the trial court refused based on Canon 2B of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Supreme Court's In re: Morvant decision, due to the judge's affiliation with the LBF. The appellate court reversed, holding that the facts are distinguishable from Morvant and In re: Johnson because this involved a valid cy pres distribution of class action residuals rather than a judge improperly imposing fines or advancing personal interests, and rendered judgment awarding the LBF the recommended 10% for Orleans Parish efforts.