History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Franklin
126 So. 3d 663
La. Ct. App.
2013
Read the full case

Background

  • 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)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Franklin
Court Name: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Date Published: Oct 9, 2013
Citation: 126 So. 3d 663
Docket Number: No. 2013-KA-0488
Court Abbreviation: La. Ct. App.