State v. Dorignac

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Dorignac

747 So. 2d 1110, 1999 La. LEXIS 2924, 1999 WL 780983

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedSeptember 24, 1999

DocketNo. 99-K-0938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 747 So. 2d 1110 (State v. Dorignac) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Dorignac, 747 So. 2d 1110, 1999 La. LEXIS 2924, 1999 WL 780983 (La. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

IN RE: State of Louisiana; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Orleans Criminal District Court Div. “E” Number 361-645; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number 98KA-0346

Granted. The district court’s judgment granting the defendant’s motion to quash is vacated and this case is remanded to that court for purposes of conducting an evidentiary hearing and receiving the testimony of all concerned parties regarding the reliability of the minute entry made on March 31, 1995, indicating that the court “reset this matter for trial for the defense to 5/1/95.” In light of the testimony adduced at the hearing, the district court is to rule again on whether the state has carried its burden of proving that prescription had not yet run by March 1, 1996, when the defense filed its motion to quash on the morning of trial.

MARCUS, J., not on panel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN RE: State of Louisiana; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Orleans Criminal District Court Div. “E” Number 361-645; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number 98KA-0346

Granted. The district court’s judgment granting the defendant’s motion to quash is vacated and this case is remanded to that court for purposes of conducting an evidentiary hearing and receiving the testimony of all concerned parties regarding the reliability of the minute entry made on March 31, 1995, indicating that the court “reset this matter for trial for the defense to 5/1/95.” In light of the testimony adduced at the hearing, the district court is to rule again on whether the state has carried its burden of proving that prescription had not yet run by March 1, 1996, when the defense filed its motion to quash on the morning of trial.

MARCUS, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

747 So. 2d 1110, 1999 La. LEXIS 2924, 1999 WL 780983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dorignac-la-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack