State v. Ward

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Ward

841 So. 2d 741, 2003 WL 342192

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 7, 2003

DocketNo. 2002-KK-2605

StatusPublished

This text of 841 So. 2d 741 (State v. Ward) 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. Ward, 841 So. 2d 741, 2003 WL 342192 (La. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the ruling of the district court denying the defendant’s motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction is reinstated. Because the boundary between the parishes of Rapides and Grant has never been fixed pursuant to La.Rev.Stat. 50:221 et seq., a matter that is currently pending in a civil action between the parishes, the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on secondary sources to determine jurisdiction under the doctrine of “l’erreur commune fait le droit,” or “common error.” See State v. Beard, 249 La. 811, 191 So.2d 631, 633 (1966); State v. Malone, 134 La. 779, 64 So. 711, 713 (1914). The district court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing introduction of disputed or incomplete surveys that had been commissioned at the behest of the now feuding parishes. Nor was fixing of the boundary necessary in this case, because the secondary evidence introduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish by a preponderance that the crime had been committed in an area that the residents and the local authorities, [742]*742in this case the respective sheriffs offices and tax assessors, believed to be located wholly within Rapides Parish. See Beard, 191 So.2d at 634.

REVERSED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REINSTATED; REMANDED

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the ruling of the district court denying the defendant’s motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction is reinstated. Because the boundary between the parishes of Rapides and Grant has never been fixed pursuant to La.Rev.Stat. 50:221 et seq., a matter that is currently pending in a civil action between the parishes, the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on secondary sources to determine jurisdiction under the doctrine of “l’erreur commune fait le droit,” or “common error.” See State v. Beard, 249 La. 811, 191 So.2d 631, 633 (1966); State v. Malone, 134 La. 779, 64 So. 711, 713 (1914). The district court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing introduction of disputed or incomplete surveys that had been commissioned at the behest of the now feuding parishes. Nor was fixing of the boundary necessary in this case, because the secondary evidence introduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish by a preponderance that the crime had been committed in an area that the residents and the local authorities, [742]*742in this case the respective sheriffs offices and tax assessors, believed to be located wholly within Rapides Parish. See Beard, 191 So.2d at 634.

REVERSED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REINSTATED; REMANDED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

841 So. 2d 741, 2003 WL 342192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ward-la-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack