Court Opinion

ID: 9527573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:31:38.001119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:54.736196
License: Public Domain

FOURNET, Chief Justice
(concurring).
The defendant having been furnished with a bill of particulars on an information charging him with theft of $7,000, the property of the partnership composed of himself and Herman Green, showing that the money involved was deposited in the Capital Bank & Trust Company, Baton Rouge, in the names of the partners jointly and subject to withdrawal by either without restriction, and that no accounting had been made or demanded,1 the State is bound by *945these particulars;2 consequently, the trial judge properly sustained the motion to quash 3 because the facts recited in the bill of particulars, even if proved, fail to constitute the crime charged.

. In the absence of a showing that a demand bad been made for an accounting and for restitution, the State could never have shown that there had been a conversion.

. Such a bill, when furnished, operates “to limit the scope of proof on the trial by restricting the introduction of evidence to the proof of those facts set out in the bill of particulars.” 31 C.J. 752, Verbo Indictments and Informations, Sec. 310; 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations, § 156, p. 1092; 27 Am.Jur. 672, Sec. 112; annotations, 8 A.L.R. 550 and 10 A.L.R. 982; State v. Bienvenu, 207 La. 859, 22 So.2d 196; State v. Bessar, 213 La. 299, 34 So.2d 785; State v. Masino, 214 La. 744, 38 So.2d 622.

. a * # * -thg court in considering the motion to quash the indictment must construe those facts as sot out in the bill of particulars to be true and determine whether or not, if proved, they constitute the crime charged.” State v. Bessar, 213 La. 299, 310, 34 So.2d 785, 789.f