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

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN CLIENT, Defendant

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

DEMAND FOR NOTICE OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

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 La. Code Cr. Pro. art. 484, to order timely written notice of the aggravating circumstances upon which the prosecution seeks to rely at 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. Mr. CLIENT clearly has the right to notice of the aggravating circumstances which will be charged against him. In State v. Martin, 376 So. 2d 300 (La. 1979), the Court held that the prosecution is "required to disclose the aggravating circumstances on which it will rely when the defendant files a bill of particulars under the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 484 requesting the same." Id. at 304; see also State v. Sonnier, 379 So. 2d 1336, 1356 (La. 1980) ("the defendant is entitled to know the aggravating circumstances which the prosecution will seek to prove sufficiently in advance of court proceedings so that reasonable opportunity to prepare will be afforded"); State v. Monroe, 366 So. 2d 1345, 1348 (La. 1978); State v. Burrell, 561 So. 2d 692, 699 (La. 1990).
3. This rule should be applied with even more force to any evidence in aggravation that the state seeks to submit as aggravation that does not fit into the statutory scheme, since Mr. Client obviously requires more notice of this even than any explicitly enumerated circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Hamilton, 478 So. 2d 123, 132 (La. 1985); State v. Bernard, 608 So. 2d 966 (La. 1992); see also State v. Perry, 502 So. 2d 543, 560 (La. 1986) (citing State v. Prieur, 277 So. 2d 126 (La. 1973)).
WHEREFORE, Mr. CLIENT moves that this Court order the State to give notice of which elements the State seeks to prove in aggravation.
??

(..continued)