State Of Louisiana v. Van Hopkins

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2023 KW 1246

VERSUS

VAN HOPKINS FEBRUARY 27, 2024

In Re: Van Hopkins, applying for supervisory writs, 20th
Judicial District Court, Parish of West Feliciana, No.
22- WFLN- 237.

BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The conduct alleged against the defendant
does not provide a legal basis for the offense charged. See
State v. DeJesus, 94- 0261 ( La. 9/ 16/ 94), 642 So. 2d 854, 855 ( per

curiam). See also State v. Robinson, 2020- 01389 ( La. 3/ 9/ 21),
312 So. 3d 255, 256 ( per curiam). the district
Accordingly,
court erred by not.
ordering the bill of information quashed.

The ruling denying the motion to quash is reversed, the motion

is granted, and this matter is remanded to the district court

for further proceedings.

Penzato, J., dissents and would deny the writ. Here, the
defense argues the failure to inform law enforcement of Marshall
Rayburn' s physical location does not rise to the level of
criminal conduct. As a general rule, a motion to quash does not
serve as a vehicle for asserting defenses to the merits of the
charges against the defendant. See State v. Faggin, 2014- 0326
La. 10/ 24/ 14), 150 So. 3d 298, 299 ( per curiam); State v.
Thomas, 2012- 0470 ( La. App. lst Cir. 11/ 14/ 12), 111 So. 3d 386,
388- 89 ( The question of the factual guilt or innocence of the
defendant is not raised by the motion to quash). An exception

to this general rule exists in cases where the State has alleged
or admitted facts under which a lawful conviction for the
charged offense is not possible. State v. Clark, 2012- 1296 ( La.
5/ 7/ 13), 117 So. 3d. 1246, 1249 ( per curiam). The indictment
alleges criminal negligence and charges an offense which is
punishable under a valid statute. The Defendant did not file a
motion for a bill of particulars and there has been no
stipulation of facts by the State. Therefore, the district
court was not presented with legal
a purely question. I would
find that the district court did not err by denying the motion
to quash.

OURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PUTY CLERKOFCOURT
FOR THE COURT