State Of Louisiana v. Fredrick Baker

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2019 KW 1682

VERSUS

FREDRICK A. BAKER
FEB 18 2020

In Re: Fredrick A. Baker, applying for writs,
supervisory
21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa,
No. 1601805.

BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s ruling denying
relator' s motion to quash is reversed. The testimony at the

motion to quash hearing did not demonstrate that the domiciliary
service was properly executed. Domiciliary service is properly
executed " when the sheriff leaves the subpoena at the dwelling
house or usual abode of the witness with a person of suitable

age and discretion residing therein as a member of the

domiciliary establishment of the witness." La. Code Crim. P.
art. 735. The testimony at the hearing did not establish that
the person to whom the subpoena had been given resided with

relator in the domiciliary At the the
establishment. hearing,
witness could not recall the gender of the person who accepted
the subpoena or whether the person was related to relator. For
these reasons, the state failed to its
satisfy heavy burden of

proving relator had notice and failed to appear and that the
time limitation for the commencement of trial was interrupted.
See State v. Reed, 2016- 1201 ( La. 1st Cir. 4/ 12/ 17),
App. 218
So. 3d 729, 731. Therefore, as a matter of law, the district
court erred by denying the motion to quash. This matter is
remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

TMH
AHP
WIL

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

r

LAW,
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT