STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2019-KA-0484
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL SAMSON H. QUINTON * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******
APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 542-196, SECTION “B” Honorable Tracey Flemings-Davillier, Judge ****** Judge Daniel L. Dysart ****** (Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Tiffany G. Chase)
Leon Cannizzaro DISTRICT ATTORNEY Donna Andrieu CHIEF OF APPEALS Irena Zajickova ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY PARISH OF ORLEANS 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/ STATE OF LOUISIANA
Pius A. Obioha PIUS A. OBIOHA & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1550 North Broad Street New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
OCTOBER 23, 2019 The State appeals the ruling of the trial court granting the defendant’s
Motion to Quash. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the ruling of the trial
court and remand this matter for further proceedings.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Detective Rigamer of the New Orleans Police Department received a phone
call on June 22, 2018, from the manager of the Shell gas station located at 3101 S.
Carrollton Avenue in New Orleans. The manager reported that an employee was
stealing money from the cash register. Detective Rigamer told the manager that a
police unit would be sent out to make a report. The next day, Detective Rigamer
followed-up on the complaint, and found that the report filed did not contain all of
the required perpetrator information. The detective phoned the manager and was
informed that the employee was at work at that time. Detective Rigamer went to
the gas station, and Samson Quinton was thereafter transported to the Second
District Police Station where an audio and video recorded interview took place.
Quinton admitted to removing money from the cash register on a daily basis;
1 however, he stated that he and the manager had an agreement that he could remove
money and pay it back when he got paid.
Detective Rigamer questioned the manager who told him that from time to
time employees could get permission to borrow money, but they would sign a
receipt for the money borrowed. Quinton had not asked permission, nor had he
signed a receipt. Rather, he was video recorded voiding transactions and putting
cash in his pocket on eight occasions. The detective retrieved the video
surveillance footage that confirmed the manager’s statements. The manager also
informed the detective that on one occasion he confronted Quinton, who admitted
to taking money and returned it.1
Based on the information obtained from the gas station manager and the
surveillance video, a bill of information was filed on July 24, 2018, charging
Quinton with theft of U.S. currency valued at $1,000.00 or more, but less than
$5,000.00, belonging to Shell gas station2 on June 22, 2018, with the intent to
permanently deprive the gas station of the property. The bill was later amended to
specify a date range of between June 11, 2018 and June 21, 2018.
According to the minute entries, on September 26, 2018, the State tendered
discovery and filed an inventory. Additionally, the State made a plea offer to
Quinton, provided he make restitution to the gas station. That offer was declined.
At a hearing on October 29, 2018, the defense orally requested an itemized
list of the money taken. The hearing was continued on a joint motion. At the next
hearing on November 26, 2018, the defense informed the court that it had not been
provided with an inventory list of the value of the allegedly stolen money. The
1 There was no evidence introduced in this case. The facts have been gleaned from the Police Report Gist contained in the record. 2 The bill of information incorrectly names the victim as “Shell Casstation.”
2 trial court granted the State additional time to file an inventory, and on January 16,
2019, the defense filed the subject Motion to Quash, which the State opposed. At a
hearing on January 22, 2019, the trial court granted the Motion to Quash.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION:
The State argues that the trial court erred in granting Quinton’s Motion to
Quash based on the State’s failure to produce documentary evidence in pre-trial
discovery sufficient to prove that the value of the property stolen was $6,000. The
defendant argued in his motion that the alleged charge was fabricated.
Motions to quash are reviewed based on the issues presented. If the motion
is based on deficient allegations in the bill of information and/or bill of particulars,
the issue is solely a question of law and is reviewed de novo. State v. Butler, 14-
1016, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/11/15), 162 So.3d 455, 459; State v. Schmolke, 12-
0406, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/16/13), 108 So.3d 296, 299. “[T]he court must accept
as true the facts contained in the bill of information and the bill of particulars and
decide whether or not a crime has been charged.” Schmolke, at p. 3, 108 So.3d at
298, citing State v. Lagarde, 95-1497, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/3/96), 672 So.2d
1102-03. “The motion to quash is a mechanism for consideration of pre-trial pleas,
which are ‘pleas which do not go to the merits of the charge.’” Schmolke, at p. 3,
108 So.3d at 298, citing State v. Byrd, 96-2302, p. 18 (La. 3/13/98), 708 So.2d 401,
411. The question of factual guilt or innocence is not before the court at a hearing
on a motion to quash. Id. If the facts [as asserted in the bill of information] can
“conceivably satisfy an essential element of the crime,” the accused person can be
compelled to stand trial for the charge. Schmolke, at p. 3, 108 So.3d at 298, citing
State v. Legendre, 362 So.2d 570, 571 (La. 1978).
3 Louisiana Code Criminal Procedure art. 536 provides in part that “[a motion
to quash] shall specify distinctly the grounds on which it is based. The court shall
hear no objection based on grounds not stated in the motion.” In general, the
grounds for a motion to quash include a deficient, defective or duplicitous bill of
information or bill of particulars, double jeopardy, prescription of time limitation
or speedy trial violation, lack of jurisdiction, improper jury venire, or valid
prescription for controlled substance charges. La.C.Cr.Proc. art. 532.
We note that Quinton’s motion is unclear on which ground(s) it is based, and it is
equally unclear on what ground(s) the trial court granted the motion.
Quinton does not allege that the bill of information is deficient or defective.
The record does not indicate that Quinton moved for a bill of particulars, nor does
he complain that the State failed to file one. The record does indicate that the State
adequately informed Quinton that the manager of the Shell gas station calculated
the amount of money stolen to be approximately $6,000.00. It would appear from
the written motion and oral argument on the motion that Quinton’s complaint is
that the State failed to produce documentation proving that he stole $6,000.00,
specifically, the voided transaction receipts. Quinton complained that the State
would not be able to carry its burden of proof at trial; however, there is no statutory
provision that allows a bill of information to be quashed due to the State’s failure
to tender evidence in pre-trial discovery sufficient to prove that it will be able to
convict.
In State v. Landry, 13-1030, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/7/14), 144 So.3d
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2019-KA-0484
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL SAMSON H. QUINTON * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******
APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 542-196, SECTION “B” Honorable Tracey Flemings-Davillier, Judge ****** Judge Daniel L. Dysart ****** (Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Tiffany G. Chase)
Leon Cannizzaro DISTRICT ATTORNEY Donna Andrieu CHIEF OF APPEALS Irena Zajickova ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY PARISH OF ORLEANS 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/ STATE OF LOUISIANA
Pius A. Obioha PIUS A. OBIOHA & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1550 North Broad Street New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
OCTOBER 23, 2019 The State appeals the ruling of the trial court granting the defendant’s
Motion to Quash. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the ruling of the trial
court and remand this matter for further proceedings.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Detective Rigamer of the New Orleans Police Department received a phone
call on June 22, 2018, from the manager of the Shell gas station located at 3101 S.
Carrollton Avenue in New Orleans. The manager reported that an employee was
stealing money from the cash register. Detective Rigamer told the manager that a
police unit would be sent out to make a report. The next day, Detective Rigamer
followed-up on the complaint, and found that the report filed did not contain all of
the required perpetrator information. The detective phoned the manager and was
informed that the employee was at work at that time. Detective Rigamer went to
the gas station, and Samson Quinton was thereafter transported to the Second
District Police Station where an audio and video recorded interview took place.
Quinton admitted to removing money from the cash register on a daily basis;
1 however, he stated that he and the manager had an agreement that he could remove
money and pay it back when he got paid.
Detective Rigamer questioned the manager who told him that from time to
time employees could get permission to borrow money, but they would sign a
receipt for the money borrowed. Quinton had not asked permission, nor had he
signed a receipt. Rather, he was video recorded voiding transactions and putting
cash in his pocket on eight occasions. The detective retrieved the video
surveillance footage that confirmed the manager’s statements. The manager also
informed the detective that on one occasion he confronted Quinton, who admitted
to taking money and returned it.1
Based on the information obtained from the gas station manager and the
surveillance video, a bill of information was filed on July 24, 2018, charging
Quinton with theft of U.S. currency valued at $1,000.00 or more, but less than
$5,000.00, belonging to Shell gas station2 on June 22, 2018, with the intent to
permanently deprive the gas station of the property. The bill was later amended to
specify a date range of between June 11, 2018 and June 21, 2018.
According to the minute entries, on September 26, 2018, the State tendered
discovery and filed an inventory. Additionally, the State made a plea offer to
Quinton, provided he make restitution to the gas station. That offer was declined.
At a hearing on October 29, 2018, the defense orally requested an itemized
list of the money taken. The hearing was continued on a joint motion. At the next
hearing on November 26, 2018, the defense informed the court that it had not been
provided with an inventory list of the value of the allegedly stolen money. The
1 There was no evidence introduced in this case. The facts have been gleaned from the Police Report Gist contained in the record. 2 The bill of information incorrectly names the victim as “Shell Casstation.”
2 trial court granted the State additional time to file an inventory, and on January 16,
2019, the defense filed the subject Motion to Quash, which the State opposed. At a
hearing on January 22, 2019, the trial court granted the Motion to Quash.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION:
The State argues that the trial court erred in granting Quinton’s Motion to
Quash based on the State’s failure to produce documentary evidence in pre-trial
discovery sufficient to prove that the value of the property stolen was $6,000. The
defendant argued in his motion that the alleged charge was fabricated.
Motions to quash are reviewed based on the issues presented. If the motion
is based on deficient allegations in the bill of information and/or bill of particulars,
the issue is solely a question of law and is reviewed de novo. State v. Butler, 14-
1016, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/11/15), 162 So.3d 455, 459; State v. Schmolke, 12-
0406, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/16/13), 108 So.3d 296, 299. “[T]he court must accept
as true the facts contained in the bill of information and the bill of particulars and
decide whether or not a crime has been charged.” Schmolke, at p. 3, 108 So.3d at
298, citing State v. Lagarde, 95-1497, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/3/96), 672 So.2d
1102-03. “The motion to quash is a mechanism for consideration of pre-trial pleas,
which are ‘pleas which do not go to the merits of the charge.’” Schmolke, at p. 3,
108 So.3d at 298, citing State v. Byrd, 96-2302, p. 18 (La. 3/13/98), 708 So.2d 401,
411. The question of factual guilt or innocence is not before the court at a hearing
on a motion to quash. Id. If the facts [as asserted in the bill of information] can
“conceivably satisfy an essential element of the crime,” the accused person can be
compelled to stand trial for the charge. Schmolke, at p. 3, 108 So.3d at 298, citing
State v. Legendre, 362 So.2d 570, 571 (La. 1978).
3 Louisiana Code Criminal Procedure art. 536 provides in part that “[a motion
to quash] shall specify distinctly the grounds on which it is based. The court shall
hear no objection based on grounds not stated in the motion.” In general, the
grounds for a motion to quash include a deficient, defective or duplicitous bill of
information or bill of particulars, double jeopardy, prescription of time limitation
or speedy trial violation, lack of jurisdiction, improper jury venire, or valid
prescription for controlled substance charges. La.C.Cr.Proc. art. 532.
We note that Quinton’s motion is unclear on which ground(s) it is based, and it is
equally unclear on what ground(s) the trial court granted the motion.
Quinton does not allege that the bill of information is deficient or defective.
The record does not indicate that Quinton moved for a bill of particulars, nor does
he complain that the State failed to file one. The record does indicate that the State
adequately informed Quinton that the manager of the Shell gas station calculated
the amount of money stolen to be approximately $6,000.00. It would appear from
the written motion and oral argument on the motion that Quinton’s complaint is
that the State failed to produce documentation proving that he stole $6,000.00,
specifically, the voided transaction receipts. Quinton complained that the State
would not be able to carry its burden of proof at trial; however, there is no statutory
provision that allows a bill of information to be quashed due to the State’s failure
to tender evidence in pre-trial discovery sufficient to prove that it will be able to
convict.
In State v. Landry, 13-1030, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/7/14), 144 So.3d
1078, 1082, this Court found that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s
motion to quash the bill of information for theft when it improperly relied on the
factual defense that the evidence was insufficient to prove theft. Quinton argues
4 that the grounds upon which a motion to quash may be based as listed in
La.C.Cr.Proc. arts. 532-34 are merely illustrative, and that a trial court may quash a
bill of information in “cases in which the state cannot establish an essential
element of the offense under any set of facts conceivably provable at trial.”
To prove its case at trial, the State must satisfy the following elements: 1)
that the defendant misappropriated or took by means of fraudulent conduct,
practices, or representations; 2) a thing of value; 3) that belonged to another; and 4)
that the defendant had the intent to deprive the owner permanently of that which
was misappropriated or taken. State v. Barker, 17-0469, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir.
5/30/18), ___ So.3d ___, writ denied, 18-0968 (La. 3/18/19); 267 So.3d 85. Also,
in this case, an element that must be proven is the value of the thing(s) taken to
determine the grade or degree of the offense. State v. Wilson, 12-1765, pp. 28-29
(La.App. 4 Cir. 2/12/14); 138 So.3d 661, 680.
In State v. LeBlanc, the State alleged in the bill of information that the
defendant stole copper wire valued at over $500.00. LeBlanc, 10-1484, pp. 9-10
(La.App. 4 Cir. 9/30/11), 76 So.3d 572, 580. This Court noted that “the testimony
of the owner of the property taken in a theft is sufficient to establish its value for
the grade of the offense.” Id. at p. 12, 76 So.3d at 581. Also see, State v. Hoskin,
605 So.2d 650, 652 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1992)(“[W]hen the degree of the crime is
based on the value of the stolen property possessed, the self-serving testimony of
the owner is sufficient if it is clear and uncontradicted.”).
At trial, the State must prove that Quinton stole from the gas station an
amount of money valued at between $1,000.00 and $5,000.00, as provided in La.
R.S. 14:567B(3), and may rely on the testimony of the gas station manager and the
video surveillance tape to prove its case. The State is not required to prove its case
5 prior to trial. As the State has included sufficient facts in the bill of information,
conceivably provable at trial, to allege that Quinton committed the crime with
which he was charged, we find that the trial court erred as a matter of law in
granting Quinton’s Motion to Quash.
Accordingly, we reverse the ruling of the trial court and remand this matter
for further proceedings.