Summary
In State v. Hoofkin, 596 So.2d 536 (La. 1992), however, the supreme court stated that a defendant may attack the facial unconstitutionality of a statute on which a conviction is based, even though the defendant did not raise the issue in the trial court or comply with the contemporaneous objection rule of La.C.Cr.P. art. 841.
Summary of this case from State v. StephensonOpinion
No. 92-K-0290.
April 20, 1992.
In re Hoofkin, Bobby; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 90KA-1688; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. "A", No. 322-358.
Granted in part; denied in part. This case is remanded to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal for consideration of the defendant's challenge to the facial validity of LSA-R.S. 14:130.1. This court has consistently held that the facial unconstitutionality of a statute on which a conviction is based is an error discoverable by the mere inspection of pleadings and proceedings, without inspection of the evidence, which is subject to appellate review under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920, even though the defendant did not raise the issue in the trial court and did not comply with the assignment of error procedure in LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 844 or with the contemporaneous objection rule of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 841. State v. Green, 493 So.2d 588, 590 (La. 1986); State v. Lee, 364 So.2d 1024 (La. 1978); State v. Wrestle, Inc., 360 So.2d 831 (La. 1978); State v. Stewart, 325 So.2d 828 (La. 1976), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 997, 96 S.Ct. 2213, 48 L.Ed.2d 822 (1976); State v. Williams, 322 So.2d 177 (La. 1975); State v. Dillard, 320 So.2d 116 (La. 1975). In all other respects the application is denied.