Court Opinion

ID: 9949033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 16:10:02.884639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:32.788303
License: Public Domain

1`

                                                yl'!        1[
                   X011111"Iffol,                                     iI 2 ' Ili 1 1 1 1

STATE        OF    LOUISIANA                                                                                       NO.      2023    KW        1156

VERSUS

DUSTIN        MEANS
                                                                                                                    MARCH          8,     2024

In     Re:              Dustin       Means,                                                for
                                                applying                                           supervisory                   writs,        22nd
                       Judicial           District Court,                                   Parish           of     St.       Tammany,             No.
                        1897- F- 2023.

BEFORE:                GUIDRY,        C. J.,           CHUTZ AND ZANIER,                               JJ.

         WRIT           GRANTED.                 The                  district              court'       s
                                                                                                               ruling            denying           the
motion            to     quash       is        reversed,                                    the
                                                                                 and                motion         is         granted.             The
periods            of     limitation                   shall                be      interrupted                   when       the    defendant
for          the         purpose              of                                           detection,
                                                         avoiding                                                   apprehension                     or
prosecution,                  flees       from          the state,                          is    outside           the       state,          or     is
absent from his Usual place of abode within the                                                                      state.             La.    Code
Crim.        P.    art.        575( 1).                The state shall not be required to allege
facts showing that the time limitation has                                                                   not   expired,             but    when
the     issue           is     raised,             the                state         has       the        burden          of                        the
                                                                                                                                 proving
facts   necessary                        to        show                   that          the        prosecution                   was
                                                                                                                                          timely
instituted.   La.                    Code          Crim.                  P.     art.        577.            When       a    defendant             has
brought            an
                          apparently                   meritorious                         motion            to    quash          based        upon
prescription,
                              the state bears a heavy burden to demonstrate that
the     time           limitation             period                   has       been        interrupted                 or      that     it       has
been     suspended so that the time                                                limitation                has    not       yet       expired.
See     State v. Rome, 93- 1221 ( La.                                              1/ 14/ 94),           630       So. 2d        1284,        1286.
The      transcript                 of        the       motion                     to       quash                                   does
                                                                                                             proceeding                            not
reflect           that        the    state             introduced                          any    evidence           at       the       hearing,
and     therefore,               the          state                   failed          to          establish                 that    the        time
period        for        institution                   of         prosecution                    was     interrupted.                   Exhibits
and attachments not properly and officially offered and admitted
into     evidence              cannot           be               considered,                     even        if    it       is
filed
                                                                                                                                   physically
             into        the     trial          court                   record.             State        v.
                                                                                                                 Whitley, 2014- 0737
 La.     App.           5th    Cir.           3/ 25/ 15,                   169       So. 3d        28,        n.  1.   Accordingly,
this matter is remanded for further proceedings.

OURT     OF APPEAL,                 FIRST CIRCUIT

         EPUTY CTER—
                   K OF COURT
                   FOR THE COURT