State v. Carter
88 So. 3d 1181
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- The State appeals a trial court ruling quashing Carter's bill of information charging illegal possession of a legend drug (Tramadol) under La. R.S. 40:1238.1(A).
- At a December 8, 2010 pretrial, lab report showed pills tested negative for violation drugs; the State moved to amend to attempted possession of a legend drug.
- Before ruling, Carter orally moved to quash on the grounds the charged offense was not a crime; the trial court granted the oral motion.
- The State sought appellate review; Carter later filed a written motion to quash on January 5, 2011, after the trial court had already ruled.
- The court invalidated Carter’s oral motion as noncompliant with La. C. Cr. P. art. 536; the written motion post-divestiture of jurisdiction had no effect, and the bill charged a valid offense.
- Appellate court held that the defense asserting negative lab results is a factual defense, not grounds to quash, and reversed to remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of oral motion to quash | Carter's oral motion complied with Byrd's pretrial pleading requirements. | Oral motion complied with Art. 536 as grounds to quash; the court should entertain it. | Oral motion invalid; not compliant with Art. 536 |
| Effect of post-error written motion after appellate jurisdiction | Written motion should reinstate grounds to quash. | Written motion filed after appeal divested trial court of jurisdiction; ineffective. | Written motion had no effect; jurisdiction divested |
| Whether negative lab results can ground a motion to quash | Defense theory negates the charged offense; supports quash. | Negative test results are factual defense, not proper basis to quash. | Negative results not grounds to quash; charge valid |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dixon, 64 So.3d 852 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2011) (oral motions to quash must comply with 536)
- State v. Joseph, 35 So.3d 422 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (requirements for motions to quash; grounds limited to procedure)
- State v. Byrd, 708 So.2d 401 (La. 1998) (motion to quash centers on procedural, not merits; evidence limited)
- State v. Gerstenberger, 255 So.2d 720 (La. 1971) (quash relies on face of pleading; merits not considered)
- State v. Masino, 38 So.2d 622 (La. 1949) (possession of defense not grounds to quash)
- State v. Patterson, 301 So.2d 604 (La.1974) (pleas pre-merit; procedural grounds only)
- State v. Rembert, 312 So.2d 282 (La.1975) (pre-trial pleas; procedural posture)
- State v. Fox, 43 So.3d 318 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (trial court erred granting quash based on defense assertion)