Case ID: so3d_182/html/0044-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WEIMER, J., CRICHTON, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Louisiana v. Michael BURNS.
    No. 2015-KK-1799.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 30, 2015.
   On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. •

| ¶ Writ application denied.

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting.

|TI would grant and docket. I agree with the concerns expressed by my colleague, Justice Crichton, in his dissent. See also State v. Love, 2000-3847 (La.5/23/03), 847 So.2d 1198 (Weimer, J., concurring in part; dissenting in part).

CRICHTON, J.,

would grant and assigns reasons.

hi would grant this application to consider the merits of the defendant’s case. As I recently expressed in State v. James, 2015-KK-1193 (La. Oct. 30, 2015), 182 So.3d 27, 2015 WL 6684539 I am troubled by the repeated use of the nolle prosequi procedure in a way that effectively usurps the authority of the trial judge. While I respect the discretionary authority of the district attorney to dismiss and reinstitute indictments (La.C.Cr.P.arts.61, 576, 691), I do not condone what appears to be the cavalier abuse of this process. In my view, under certain circumstances, the dismissal and f einstitütion of an indictment has the effect of circumventing a trial court’s'ruling denying the district attorney a continuance. This, in turn, interferes with the trial court’s inherent authority to control its docket (La.C.Cr.P. art. 17), and renders meaningless a trial court’s decision to deny a continuance.