IN THE FIFTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PARISH OF PEINE DE MORT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. _____

=================================

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN CLIENT, Defendant

=================================

JACKSON DEMAND FOR NOTICE OF ANY BAD ACTS
THAT THE STATE MAY WISH TO USE AT EITHER PHASE

COMES NOW, JOHN CLIENT, by counsel, and moves this Court pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16 & 17 of the Louisiana Constitution, and other law set out below, to order that the State provide notice to the defense of any bad acts that the State may wish to use against Mr. CLIENT at either potential phase of this trial. In support of his motion, Mr. CLIENT states as follows:

1. Since this is to be a capital prosecution, exacting standards must be met to assure that it is fair. As the Louisiana Supreme Court has held, "[d]eath, in its finality, differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year prison term differs from one of only a year or two. Because of that qualitative difference, there is a corresponding difference in the need for reliability in the jury's determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case." State v. Myles, 389 So. 2d 12, 30 (La. 1979) (citing cases).
2. The Supreme Court has held that there must be pre-trial notice of the state's intent to use "bad act" evidence. The defendant must be "informed within a reasonable time before trial that he must be prepared to meet evidence relating to crimes other than the charged crime." State v. Hamilton, 478 So. 2d 123, 132 (La. 1985) (emphasis in original); see also State v. Perry, 502 So. 2d 543, 560 (La. 1986) ("The defendant is correct that the State may not introduce evidence of other crimes without giving notice that it intends to do so") (citing State v. Prieur, 277 So. 2d 126 (La. 1973)).
3. This applies to bad acts that the state may wish to show affirmatively or on cross-examination of Mr. CLIENT. Prior to using evidence of prior criminal acts, the trial judge should determine prior to trial "that the state ha[s] credible grounds for its cross-examination." State v. Ford, 489 So. 2d 1250, 1263 (La. 1986); see also Christenson v. State, 261 Ga. 80, 402 S.E. 2d 41 (Ga. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 166, 116 L. Ed. 130 (1991) (remand for hearing on whether prosecutor had good faith basis for asking questions regarding prior bad acts). With respect to prior bad acts, "[t]he underlying policy of protecting the accused against unfair prejudice dictates that, even though the evidence [may] have an independent relevance, the trial judge must balance all of the pertinent factors to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect." State v. Kirkpatrick, 443 So. 2d 546, 556-57 (La. 1983).
4. At the penalty phase, the same notice requirements apply. See State v. Jackson, 608 So. 2d 949, 957 (La. 1992) ("Fundamental fairness requires that when a prosecutor intends to use evidence of unrelated conduct to prove the guilt of the accused for the charged crime or to increase the punishment for the charged crime, the accused must be notified in order that he may prepare to rebut or defend against the evidence which he would not otherwise know he must defend").
5. It is also clear that the prosecution must give more than pro forma notice. The notice must include sufficient details surrounding the alleged offenses so that Mr. CLIENT meaningfully knows what he must defend against. "Adequate notice, sufficiently detailed to allow the defendant to know the exact unrelated conduct he must be prepared to meet in the sentencing hearing and sufficiently in advance of trial to allow reasonable preparation of a defense, is essential to provide meaning to the defendant's corresponding due process right of a reasonable opportunity to be heard. . . ." State v. Jackson, 608 So. 2d 949, 957 (La. 1992).
WHEREFORE, Mr. CLIENT respectfully requests that this Court order the state to provide him with meaningful, written notice of any and all bad acts that the state may use at either the guilt or the penalty phase of this trial.
??

(..continued)