State v. Pennington

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Pennington

927 So. 2d 268, 2006 La. LEXIS 1191, 2006 WL 1083574

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 24, 2006

DocketNo. 2006-KK-0597

StatusPublished

This text of 927 So. 2d 268 (State v. Pennington) 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. Pennington, 927 So. 2d 268, 2006 La. LEXIS 1191, 2006 WL 1083574 (La. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. A judgment granting a motion to suppress generally presupposes a ruling on the merits of a defendant’s claim that the state has secured physical evidence, statements, or identifications, in an unconstitutional manner. When the trial court ruled on the motions, less than a month after institution of this prosecution for armed robbery in violation of La. R.S. 14:64, the court had alternative means other than summary grant of the pre-trial motions to promote the orderly and expeditious administration of justice. Cf. State v. Mims, 329 So.2d 686 (La.1976) (verdict of not guilty presupposes a trial at which facts have been placed at issue and resolved in defendant’s favor; trial court may not enter a judgment of acquittal before swearing any witnesses to punish the state for its lack of preparation). It appears that the trial court granted the various motions to suppress in the present case to punish the state for its lack of preparation, as opposed to disposing of the motions on the merits of their underlying constitutional claims, some as to which the defendants had the burden of proof. Therefore, the ruling is vacated and this case is remanded for retrial of the motions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Granted. A judgment granting a motion to suppress generally presupposes a ruling on the merits of a defendant’s claim that the state has secured physical evidence, statements, or identifications, in an unconstitutional manner. When the trial court ruled on the motions, less than a month after institution of this prosecution for armed robbery in violation of La. R.S. 14:64, the court had alternative means other than summary grant of the pre-trial motions to promote the orderly and expeditious administration of justice. Cf. State v. Mims, 329 So.2d 686 (La.1976) (verdict of not guilty presupposes a trial at which facts have been placed at issue and resolved in defendant’s favor; trial court may not enter a judgment of acquittal before swearing any witnesses to punish the state for its lack of preparation). It appears that the trial court granted the various motions to suppress in the present case to punish the state for its lack of preparation, as opposed to disposing of the motions on the merits of their underlying constitutional claims, some as to which the defendants had the burden of proof. Therefore, the ruling is vacated and this case is remanded for retrial of the motions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

927 So. 2d 268, 2006 La. LEXIS 1191, 2006 WL 1083574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pennington-la-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack