State v. Bell
Supreme Court of Louisiana
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWeimer, J.
hi agree this case merits this court’s supervisory review. However, for the rea*1008sons that follow, I would docket this matter and resolve the merits following oral argument.
When the district court granted the motion to quash, a central reason was the state’s dismissing and reinstating charges against the defendant in order to effectively obtain a continuance of the trial date, after the district court had already denied the state’s request for a continuance. Additionally, the district court explained in a per curiam that the state has utilized this procedure frequently: “Nolle Prosequi should…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. LoveSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2003
- State v. BellLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2012