State v. Taylor
Louisiana Supreme Court
642 So. 2d 160 (1994)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
The State of Louisiana (plaintiff) charged Kenneth Taylor (defendant) with aggravated battery after Taylor allegedly assaulted, beat, and threatened to kill his girlfriend, Glenda Richard. Richard gave a typed statement regarding the beating and appeared on a videotape. The state dropped the charges against Taylor in December of 1993 after Richard told the trial court that she would not testify against Taylor and did not want Taylor to be prosecuted. However, the state reinstituted the case against Taylor in January of 1994. After learning that Taylor and Richard got married in February of 1994, the state filed a motion in limine asking the trial court to bar Richard from asserting a claim of spousal privilege and to rule that Richard’s statements and videotape were admissible. The trial court denied the state’s motion. The state sought review from the appellate court and presented the court with an affidavit from Richard’s mother indicating that Richard had moved back in with her family three days after marrying Taylor. Richard’s mother stated that she believed that Richard was afraid to testify against Taylor. The appellate court denied the state’s request for review, and the state sought review from the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.