State Of Louisiana v. Dustin Michael Means

1`

yl'! 1[
X011111"Iffol, iI 2 ' Ili 1 1 1 1

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2023 KW 1156

VERSUS

DUSTIN MEANS
MARCH 8, 2024

In Re: Dustin Means, for
applying supervisory writs, 22nd
Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No.
1897- F- 2023.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ AND ZANIER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s
ruling denying the
motion to quash is reversed, the
and motion is granted. The
periods of limitation shall be interrupted when the defendant
for the purpose of detection,
avoiding apprehension or
prosecution, flees from the state, is outside the state, or is
absent from his Usual place of abode within the state. La. Code
Crim. P. art. 575( 1). The state shall not be required to allege
facts showing that the time limitation has not expired, but when
the issue is raised, the state has the burden of the
proving
facts necessary to show that the prosecution was
timely
instituted. La. Code Crim. P. art. 577. When a defendant has
brought an
apparently meritorious motion to quash based upon
prescription,
the state bears a heavy burden to demonstrate that
the time limitation period has been interrupted or that it has
been suspended so that the time limitation has not yet expired.
See State v. Rome, 93- 1221 ( La. 1/ 14/ 94), 630 So. 2d 1284, 1286.
The transcript of the motion to quash does
proceeding not
reflect that the state introduced any evidence at the hearing,
and therefore, the state failed to establish that the time
period for institution of prosecution was interrupted. Exhibits
and attachments not properly and officially offered and admitted
into evidence cannot be considered, even if it is
filed
physically
into the trial court record. State v.
Whitley, 2014- 0737
La. App. 5th Cir. 3/ 25/ 15, 169 So. 3d 28, n. 1. Accordingly,
this matter is remanded for further proceedings.

OURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

EPUTY CTER—
K OF COURT
FOR THE COURT