WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 243

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS: Provides relative to the appointment of a substitute for a recused district attorney

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Roger Wilder

The bill shifts substitute DA appointments from trial-court selection to the Attorney General, who will appoint a substitute with full powers after being notified.

Effective date: 08/01/2026.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 243

Summary of HB 243 (2026) – Louisiana: District Attorneys – Appointment of Substitute for a Recused District Attorney

What this bill does (Purpose)

  • HB 243 amends the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 682, to regulate how a substitute district attorney is appointed when a district attorney is recused or recuses themselves.
  • The bill clarifies and narrows the process for selecting a substitute in such cases, replacing existing language that required the trial judge to appoint a substitute attorney meeting district attorney qualifications and not being an assistant to the recused DA.

Key provisions and changes

  • Current law (before HB 243):
    • When a district attorney is recused or recuses themselves, the trial judge must either:
    • appoint an attorney at law who has the qualifications of a district attorney and is not an assistant to the recused DA to act in the case, or
    • notify the Attorney General in writing of the recusation, so the Attorney General can appoint a substitute (either a staff member or a district attorney from another district) to act in the place of the recused DA.
  • Proposed changes under HB 243:
    • The requirement that the trial judge must appoint an attorney who has the qualifications of a district attorney and is not an assistant to the recused DA is removed.
    • The process retains the alternative pathway: the trial judge must notify the Attorney General in writing of the recusation.
    • The Attorney General would then be responsible for appointing a substitute, either:
    • a member of the Attorney General’s staff, or
    • a district attorney from another district, to act in the place of the recused district attorney.
    • The substitute appointed by the Attorney General would have all the powers of the recused district attorney with reference to the case.

Who/factors affected

  • Primary affected role: District Attorney (DA) who is recused, and the parallel administrative process for appointing a substitute.
  • Participants affected:
    • Trial judges (responsible for notifying the Attorney General under the bill).
    • Attorney General (responsible for appointing a substitute from staff or another district attorney).
    • Substituting attorney (who would assume all powers related to the case as if they were the recused DA).
  • Practical impact: Streamlines and centralizes the appointment of a substitute DA through the Attorney General’s office, removing the trial judge’s option to independently appoint a substitute DA meeting district attorney qualifications who is not an assistant to the recused DA.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Notification duty: Under HB 243, the trial judge must provide written notification to the Attorney General upon recusation.
  • Appointment authority: The Attorney General would appoint the substitute (from his staff or a district attorney from another district) to take over duties, with full authority in the case.
  • Effective scope: Amends only Article 682 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; does not appear to alter other recusal processes or timelines beyond who makes the substitution decision.

Overall assessment

  • HB 243 shifts the appointment of a substitute DA from a court-directed choice (that required the substitute to have DA qualifications and not be an assistant) to a statutory process whereby the Attorney General makes the substitution after being notified by the court.
  • The substitution would carry full powers in the case, ensuring continuity in prosecution during the recusal period.
  • The bill maintains the notification step to the Attorney General but removes the trial judge’s independent appointment mandate, potentially standardizing substitutions across cases.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.