Case ID: so2d_877/html/0099-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. TRAYLOR, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Louisiana v. Melissa WALKER.
    No. 2003-K-2871.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    July 2, 2004.
    Charles C. Foti, Jr., Attorney General, Iley H. Evans, District Attorney, Frederick A. Duhy, Asst. Attorney General, Kathleen E. Petersen, Asst. Attorney General, Counsel for Applicant.
    Dina F. Domangue, Counsel for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

After conducting an independent review of the record, and considering the arguments of counsel, we conclude that the decision of the court of appeal does not require the exercise of our supervisory authority. Accordingly, our order of March 12, 2004 is recalled as improvidently granted.

TRAYLOR, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

TRAYLOR, Justice,

dissenting.

In the present case, the state responded to the defense request for discovery and inspection by providing counsel with open-file discovery. Testimony presented at the preliminary hearing provided further detailed notice of what conduct the state had charged against respondent and informed respondent of the legal basis upon which it charged her with criminal culpability. Moreover, the bill of information itself initially provided the defendant with notice of the charges against her. Although the bill of information could have been more specifically worded, the bill of information itself, plus the open file discovery and the preliminary hearing testimony provided the defendant sufficient notice of the crime charged.

Under these circumstances, because the state has provided respondent with sufficient notice of the crime charged, and because the record reveals at least one set of facts which, if proved to the satisfaction of a trier of fact, may support a conviction for violation of LSA-R.S. 14:93.3,1 believe the trial court erred in sustaining the motion to quash.

Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 
      
      . As noted by the court of appeal, "if the prosecution is able to draft a bill of information which validly charges Walker with a crime, it may be possible to reinstitute prosecution [within the time limits set by La. C.Cr.P. art. 572(A)(2)].” State v. Walker, 37, 493, p. 8, n. 6 (La.App. 2nd Cir.8/20/03), 853 So.2d 746, 751.