Court Opinion

ID: 9818134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:25:34.046236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:58.504561
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Chief Justice,
dissents and assigns reasons.
11 This court’s role is to recognize the legislative will in procedural rules and time limitations. La. Ch. C. Art. 877 gives the prosecution specific time limits to bring the adjudication of delinquency for hearing in the Juvenile Court, or transfer the- case to the District Court. •
In this case, the prosecution did neither within the time limits. The judge’s role as gatekeeper is to interpret procedural rules so that neither prosecution nor defense is favored or prejudiced. What we have created is an aberration, where the prosecution determines the conduct' of the trial, regardless of procedural rules. The judge *577may continue a trial on hearing for good cause; a witness is unavailable, a party has a conflict, and other legitimate reasons. In our current system, a judge’s denial of the prosecution’s motion to continue, means nothing. The prosecution simply enters a nolle prosequi in the action, then files a new bill of information, bringing the same charges. State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/28/03),-847 So.2d 1198.
Here, the state failed to bring the case to adjudication in Juvenile Court within the time limits of Article 877. While the state had several months to do so, it failed to transfer the case to District Court before the expiration of time limits. The state then dismissed the charges in Juvenile Court, • and presented the . same charges for .a grand jury indictment. Where is the protection for defendants in this chess I .¿game, when the prosecution can do an end run around the court’s attempt to control progress of the trial, and the time limitations start anew.

ON CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE UNITED STATES FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE