Court Opinion

ID: 9945310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 18:06:58.18201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:25.988388
License: Public Domain

STATE         OF     LOUISIANA                                                                             NO.    2023    KW      1246

VERSUS

VAN      HOPKINS                                                                                  FEBRUARY             27,        2024

In      Re:           Van           Hopkins,               applying              for       supervisory                 writs,          20th
                      Judicial                 District          Court,          Parish          of    West       Feliciana,            No.
                      22- WFLN- 237.

BEFORE:               THERIOT,             PENZATO,             AND        GREENE,         JJ.

          WRIT           GRANTED.                The        conduct          alleged              against         the     defendant
does          not     provide              a    legal           basis        for       the       offense          charged.              See
State         v.     DeJesus,              94- 0261 (           La.    9/   16/ 94),            642    So. 2d      854,      855 (      per

curiam).                 See        also        State       v.        Robinson,             2020- 01389 (          La.       3/ 9/ 21),
312       So. 3d          255,        256 (          per        curiam).                                           the       district
                                                                                       Accordingly,
court           erred          by     not.
                                                 ordering             the        bill       of        information            quashed.

The      ruling           denying              the        motion       to     quash          is       reversed,         the       motion

is      granted,            and        this          matter           is    remanded             to    the       district          court

for      further proceedings.

          Penzato,              J.,        dissents     and would deny the writ.   Here, the
defense            argues           the        failure to inform law enforcement of Marshall
Rayburn' s               physical               location              does        not        rise          to     the     level          of
criminal            conduct.               As        a    general          rule,       a    motion         to    quash       does       not
serve         as     a    vehicle              for  asserting defenses to                                  the    merits          of    the
charges             against           the       defendant.   See  State v.                                 Faggin,        2014- 0326
 La.          10/ 24/      14),        150           So. 3d       298,           299 (       per       curiam);           State          v.
Thomas,             2012- 0470 (               La.       App.     lst       Cir.       11/ 14/ 12),              111    So. 3d         386,
388- 89 (           The     question                 of    the        factual          guilt          or    innocence             of    the
defendant             is       not     raised              by    the       motion          to     quash).          An     exception

to this general rule exists in cases where the State has alleged
or      admitted               facts            under           which        a     lawful             conviction             for        the
charged            offense            is       not       possible.           State         v.     Clark,         2012- 1296 (           La.
5/ 7/    13),        117          So. 3d.        1246,           1249 (       per          curiam).              The     indictment
alleges             criminal               negligence                 and     charges             an       offense        which          is
punishable               under         a       valid       statute.              The       Defendant             did    not       file    a
motion             for      a        bill            of     particulars                    and        there       has        been        no
stipulation                of         facts          by     the        State.               Therefore,             the       district
court         was        not      presented               with                             legal
                                                                      a purely                         question.              I    would
find      that           the      district                court       did not err                 by denying            the       motion
to    quash.

 OURT         OF APPEAL,              FIRST          CIRCUIT

                PUTY      CLERKOFCOURT
                     FOR       THE     COURT