Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas NATIONS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1982-10-18
Citations: 420 So. 2d 967
Docket Number: No. 82-K-1315
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas NATIONS.
Judges: LEMMON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 420
Pages: 967–968

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas NATIONS.
No. 82-K-1315.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Oct. 18, 1982.
Anthony J. Marabella, Jr., Leo J. D’Au-bin, Baton Rouge, for relator.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie Brown, Dist. Atty., Kay Kirkpatrick, Louis Daniel, Asst. Dist. Attys., for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Under article 578 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the state has one year from the institution of prosecution to bring a misdemeanor case to trial. This period of limitation is interrupted under certain, narrowly defined, circumstances, including when the defendant absents himself from his usual place of abode within the state, with the purpose of avoiding detection, apprehension, or prosecution. C.Cr.P. 579. The state bears a heavy burden of showing that it is excused from trying an accused on a charge later than the period mandated by article 578. State v. Guidry, 395 So.2d 764 (La.1981); State v. DeVito, 391 So.2d 813 (La.1980); State v. Driever, 347 So.2d 1132 (La.1977).
In the present case, the period of limitation elapsed and the state clearly failed to carry its heavy burden of showing the existence of circumstances amounting to an interruption under Art. 579. The state filed a bill of information against the defendant in December, 1980, but did not bring him to trial before April, 1982, when the defendant moved to quash the charges against him. In April, 1981, a representative of the sheriff's office attempted to serve the defendant with notice of arraignment, but did not complete the service because the defendant had moved to a new address. During the fourteen month period between the filing of the information and the motion to quash, the defendant was employed by Petroleum Service, the same employer as on the date of his arrest. The employer's name and address was given to the bonding company and to the court, and appeared on the face of the bond itself. During this time interval, the defendant remained a resident of Baton Rouge. Although he did change apartments on two occasions, he notified his bonding company of each move and completed a change of address form with the United States Postal Service. Additionally, his telephone number was always correctly listed with directory assistance. This evidence does not warrant a finding that the defendant absented himself from his usual place of abode within the state with the purpose of avoiding detection, apprehension or prosecution.
Accordingly, the ruling of the trial court to the contrary must be reversed and defendant's motion to quash must be granted.
REVERSED; MOTION TO QUASH GRANTED.
LEMMON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.