State Of Louisiana v. Brandon Applewhite

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 30, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
BRANDON APPLEWHITE
No. 2024-KK-00226
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Number(s) 0442-F-2022, Court
of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2023 KW 1169;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 30, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Genovese, J., dissents.
Griffin, J., dissents.
SJC
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
04/30/2024 "See News Release 020 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2024-KK-00226
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
BRANDON APPLEWHITE
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Tammany
PER CURIAM:
Writ granted. We find the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court’s
denial of defendant’s motion to quash. Code of Criminal Procedure article 473
requires a charging document to include the name of the person injured when their
name is “ substantial and not merely descriptive.” However, in the event the name
of the victim is not known, La. C.Cr.P. art. 473 provides, “it is sufficient to so state
and to describe him as far as possible.” In this case, the identity of the victims is
“substantial and not merely descriptive,” however their names are not known. The
state has admitted as much and has provided a bill of particulars and open -file
discovery to defendant. See State v. Pichler, 355 So. 2d 1302, 1304 (La. 1978),
(finding the grant of open file discovery to the defense to be “significant in
resolving whether or not defendant was prejudiced in preparation of his defense by
an insufficient recitation of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”)
Accordingly, we find the appellate court erred in finding defendant is prejudiced
by the state’s failure to provide the names of the victims. The decision of the court
of appeal is reversed, the trial court’s ruling denying defendant’s motion to quash
is reinstated. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
04/30/24