Opinion
Granted. We find the district court abused its discretion. The ruling of the district court is reversed insofar as it permits the defendant to inform the jury of the possible sentence faced by defendant if defendant is convicted and the state successfully pursues recidivist sentence enhancement. The matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.
WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
HUGHES, J., would deny stay and deny writ.
WEIMER, J., dissenting.
The state concedes “the decision to permit or deny an instruction or argument on an offense's penalty is within the discretion of the trial judge....” (Application, pp. 5–6) (citing State v. Jackson, 450 So.2d 621, 633–34 (La.1984) ). Without a record, without an opposition, and without the reasons for the district court's ruling being attached to the state's application, there has been no proper deference given to the district court and to the exercise of that court's discretion. Thus, I would deny the writ on the showing made.