State v. Wille
Louisiana Supreme Court
559 So. 2d 1321 (1990)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
The State of Louisiana (plaintiff) charged John Francis Wille (defendant) with kidnapping, raping, and murdering an eight-year-old girl. At Wille’s trial, the court allowed Special Agent Victor Harvey of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to testify about interviews he conducted with eyewitnesses Judith and Sheila Walters. Harvey testified that Judith and Sheila provided Harvey with specific facts and details about the crime that law-enforcement officers were able to corroborate. Harvey further testified that based on the interviews, he considered Wille the prime suspect and became certain that Wille committed the crime. The trial court also allowed Deborah Davis, a Popeye’s Fried Chicken employee, to testify that she had identified Wille in an out-of-court photographic lineup as the person who came into the restaurant and asked for an empty bag on the night of the murder. Other evidence at the trial indicated that Wille disposed of the murder weapon and the severed hand of another victim in a Popeye’s bag. The jury ultimately found Wille guilty of murder, and Wille appealed. Wille argued, among other things, that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence in Harvey’s testimony and improperly allowed Davis to testify about her out-of-court identification without first identifying Wille in court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lemmon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
