Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Leerony THAMES
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1972-03-08
Citations: 259 So. 2d 26
Docket Number: No. 52024
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Leerony THAMES.
Judges: BARHAM, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 259
Pages: 26–27

Head Matter:
261 La. 96
STATE of Louisiana v. Leerony THAMES.
No. 52024.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
March 8, 1972.
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Ralph L. Roy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellant.
Seale, Smith & Phelps, Donald S. Zuber, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
A charge of aggravated battery, La.R.S. 14:34, was brought against the defendant, Leerony Thames, growing out of a barroom altercation. The defendant had previously been charged with criminal damage to property under the Baton Rouge City Code, 13:20, for alleged damage to proper! ty occurring during the same barroom altercation. He was found not guilty of the charges lodged against him in the municipal court.
Prior to trial on the state charges of aggravated battery, the defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of information based upon a plea of former jeopardy. The district judge sustained the plea of former jeopardy and for undesignated oral reasons quashed the information. The State reserved and perfected a bill of exceptions to the trial judge's ruling and urges that ruling be overturned by way of this appeal.
We find there is merit to the State's argument. The defendant was not tried in both courts for the "identical offense" or same crime. La.C.Cr.P. art. 596; Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435 (1970). There is no showing in the record before us that the second prosecution should be barred under the collateral estoppel doctrine. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970).
For the reasons assigned, the District Court's ruling is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
BARHAM, J., concurs and assigns reasons.