Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Bell

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided September 27, 2013No. 2013-K-0117Published

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

  1. State v. LoveSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2003
  2. State v. BellLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API