State v. King
60 So. 3d 615
La.2011Background
- Charge: issuing worthless checks >$500; information filed March 17, 2008.
- Trial began to be managed under a court policy allowing one continuance per side; state sought additional continuances due to bank records issues.
- Capitol One Bank subpoena issued; bank records incomplete; no records custodian produced for testimony.
- On May 20, 2009, after bank records issues, the state dismissed the bill and anticipated refiling; defense and court expected refiling.
- The state refiled the same charge the next day; defendant moved to quash contending misuse of docket control and potential prejudice.
- Trial court granted the motion to quash on October 21, 2009; case dismissed with prejudice; state appealed; appellate court majority reversed; this Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal and reinstitution of charges constitutes abuse of prosecutorial discretion | King argues continued prosecutorial control undermined by dismissal and reinstitution | King argues the state acted to gain a continuance and prejudice defendant | Yes, remand for proceedings consistent with holding of Love/Batiste |
| Whether the state’s actions violated due process or Speedy Trial rights | King contends prejudice due to delays and manipulation of docket | King contends there was no selective prejudice shown | Remanded for reconsideration with prejudice analysis under Love and Marion |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion under La.C.Cr.P. art. 17 and related docket-control rules | State asserts trial court’s discretion allowed orderly docket management | Prosecutor’s dismissal/reinstatement disrupts court authority and defendant’s rights | The court’s ruling reversed; court must consider whether state flaunted authority in light of facts |
| Whether two-year trial time limit under Art. 578 applied or was tolled | State argues time limits were not tolled | Defense argues dismissal/reinstatement affected timeliness and prejudice | Case remanded to address timing and prejudice under relevant authorities |
| What standard governs appellate review of a motion to quash in this context | State relies on deference to trial court’s discretion | Defendant contends deference should yield to evident abuse | Remanded for proceedings consistent with Love/Batiste framework |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Batiste, 939 So.2d 1245 (La. 2006) (prosecution’s authority and docket management examined; abuse if prejudicial to defendant)
- State v. Love, 847 So.2d 1198 (La. 2003) (limits on DA’s use of dismissal to gain advantage; due process considerations)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1971) (speedy trial rights; statutory periods enforceable; prejudice standard components)
- State v. Reaves, 376 So.2d 136 (La. 1979) (docket control and trial management considerations in context of delays)
- State v. Frith, 194 La. 508, 194 So. 1 (La. 1940) (equilibrium between court authority and prosecutorial power)
- Love, Barker v. Wingo, Not provided (cited within Love) (La. 2003/1972) (speedy trial framework; prejudice showing required for delays)