State Of Louisiana v. Ronald Robinson, Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 09, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
RONALD ROBINSON, ET AL.
No.2020-KK-01389
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Ronald Robinson - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 544- 470, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2020-K-0427;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 09, 2021
Writ application granted in part. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Crichton, J., dissents.
PDG
JLW
JTG
WJC
JBM
03/09/2021 "See News Release 009 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

03/09/21
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2020-KK-1389
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
VE
RSUS
RO
NALD ROBINSON, ET AL.
O
N SUPERVISORY WRIT TO THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
PE
R CURIAM
Writ granted in part. Defendant was indicted with two counts of conspiracy to
obstruct justice, La.R.S. 14:130.1(A), in two second degree murder investigations.
Because none of the discovery tendered by the State appeared to directly implicate
defendant, defendant filed a motion for a bill of particulars. In response, the State
provided nine subsections of La.R.S. 14:130.1(A) it alleged defendant had violated,
and otherwise referred defendant to the discovery already provided. Defendant
objected that the State ’s response was insufficient, and sought to qua sh the
indictment. The district court denied the motion to quash. The court of appeal
granted writs in part and remanded to the district court with instructions to afford the
State an opportunity to file another supplemental bill of particulars that will inform
the defense of the nature of the accusations against him. State v. Robinson, 2020-
0040, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/05/20) (unpub’d) (“Defendant is entitled to know what
it is the State alleges he did to commit the offense.”).
On remand, the State filed a supplemental bill of particulars explaining the
meaning of various terms used in La.R.S. 14:130.1(A) generally. With respect to
specific allegations against the defendant, the State clarified only that defendant was
part of a conspiracy to remove and destroy the victims’ bodies and ballistic and other
evidence with the intent to distort the results of criminal proceedings. The defendant

objected that the State had still not alleged facts relating to the particulars of the
offenses and his alleged role in them, and again sought to quash the indictment. The
district court denied the renewed motion to quash, and the court of appeal denied
writs. State v. Robinson, 2020-0427 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/2/20) (unpub’d). The courts
below erred.
La. Const. Art. I, § 13 requires the State to inform the accused in a criminal
prosecution of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The S tate may
provide that information in the indictment alone, or in its responses to a defense
request for a bill of particulars. State v. Gainey, 376 So.2d 1240, 1242–43 (La. 1979).
The purpose of the bill of particulars is to inform the accused more fully of the nature
and scope of the charge against him so that he will be able to defend himself properly
and to avoid any possibility of ever being charged again with the same criminal
conduct. State v. Marcal, 388 So.2d 656 (La. 1980); State v. Rogers, 375 So.2d 1304
(La. 1979). A bill of particulars may not be used to obtain the State’s evidence, State
v. Huizar, 414 So.2d 741 (La. 1982), and a motion to quash is generally not an
appropriate vehicle for raising defenses on the merits. State v. Perez, 464 So.2d 737
(La. 1985). Nevertheless, if the indictment and/or bill of particulars fails to inform
the defendant adequately of the charges against him or if it appears that the offense
charged was not committed by the defendant, the trial court may order the indictment
quashed, and it may indeed be reversible error to fail to do so. La.C.Cr.P. arts. 485,
532(A)(4). In State v. Miller, 319 So.2d 339 (La. 1975), this court set forth some of
the factors to be considered in determining whether a defendant was given all of the
information to which he is constitutionally entitled:
The state is required, upon defendant’ s motion, to provide a criminal
defendant with enough information so that he can identify the criminal
transaction. There is no exact formula which can be applied to every
charge to determine in a particular case whether a defendant has all of
the information to which he is constitutionally entitled. In general,
however, the extent to which the bill should be granted turns on the
complexity of the case. If the crime is a single event, such as a murder,

the scope of the bill will be less extensive than it will be if the crime
involved is a series of occurrences, such as tax fraud or bootlegging.
When a crime charged may be committed in a number of different
ways, this Court has always recognized the accentuated need for the
state to furnish particulars. Likewise, when the crime involves not a
single occurrence but a series of occurrences, the state must supply
enough information so that the accused can identify each criminal
transaction.

Miller, 319 So.2d at 342–43 (citations omitted).
Applying those factors here, the case is complex, and defendant is accused of
a broad conspiracy to obstruct justice in two separate murder investigations. In
addition, the State has alleged numerous means in the statute by which defendant
may have committed the crimes. After reviewing the State’s responses thus far, it is
clear that the State has yet to provide defendant with enough information about the
nature and cause of the accusations against him to comply with La. Const. Art. I, §
13, and to sufficiently inform him of the nature and scope of the charges so that he
will be able to defendant himself properly.
Accordingly, we grant defendant’s application in part to remand to the district
court, which is ordered to afford the State one final opportunity to expeditiously
provide sufficient particulars. The application is otherwise denied.
REMANDED