State v. Franklin
126 So. 3d 663
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- District attorney appeals trial court's grant of motion to quash the bill of information charging Franklin with bail jumping under La. R.S. 14:110.1 A.
- Franklin allegedly failed to appear at a court date; he contends nonappearance was unintentional due to hospitalization August 18–26, 2011.
- Trial court relied in part on medical documents attached to the motion to quash to support a merits-based defense.
- Appellate review is de novo; motions to quash are limited to questions of law and should not consider factual merits.
- The court noted that a defendant may have a meritorious defense on the merits, but this does not justify quashing the bill of information.
- The court held that the trial court improperly considered factual defenses and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did trial court err by considering merits-based factual defenses on a motion to quash? | State argues court limited to legal questions only. | Franklin contends evidence supports unintentional missing due to hospitalization. | Yes; improper factual consideration requires reversal. |
| Is specific intent an element that requires factual proof at trial rather than quashing the information? | DA contends the bill adequately informs of charges; merits for trial. | Franklin asserts lack of intent negates offense; medical records could prove absence of intent. | Specific intent is a merit issue to be resolved at trial; quash not appropriate on that basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carter, 88 So.3d 1181 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (motion to quash limited to pretrial pleas, not merits)
- State v. Byrd, 708 So.2d 401 (La. 1998) (scope of motions to quash; absence of grounds requires different handling)
- State v. Rembert, 312 So.2d 282 (La.1975) (limits on quashable issues; does not reach merits)
- State v. Clark, 117 So.3d 1246 (La. 2013) (pretrial rulings; legal vs. factual considerations)
- State v. Schmolke, 108 So.3d 296 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (trial court's review of motion to quash confined to questions of law)
