State Of Louisiana v. David Klump

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 17, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
DAVID KLUMP
No. 2024-KK-00565
_ _
_ _ _ _
IN
RE: David Klump - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish
of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 559-506, Court of Appeal,
Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2024-K-0213;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 17, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Griffin, J., dissents in part.
SJC
JLW
JDH
JTG
WJC
JBM
05/17/2024 "See News Release 024 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.
2024-KK-00565
STA
TE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
DAVID KLUMP
On S
upervisory Writ to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans
PE
R CURIAM:
Writ granted. A motion to quash may be granted when “[t]he indictment fails
to charge an offense which is punishable under a valid statute.” La. C.Cr.P. art.
532(1). In considering a motion to quash, a court must accept as true the facts
contained in the bill of information and in the bills of particulars and determine , as
a matter of law and from the face of the pleadings, whether a crime has been charged.
State v. Perez, 464 So.2d 737, 739 (La. 1985). As a general matter, a motion to quash
does not serve as a vehicle for asserting defenses on the merits. Id., 464 So.2d at
739–40. However, an exception to this rule exists where the State has alleged or
admitted facts under which a lawful conviction for the charged offense is not
possible. State v. Legendre, 362 So.2d 570 (La. 1978). In Legendre, this Court held
that an indictment based on “an allegation of fact which cannot conceivably satisfy
an essential element of the crime,” must be quashed in order to avoid compelling the
accused “to withstand the rigors of a jury trial with no expectation that a conviction
can be supported by such an allegation.” Id., 362 So.2d at 571.
In this case, the State charged defendant with four counts of misdemeanor
crimes and four counts of felony crimes. The four felony counts are based on a claim
that defendant called the alleged victim of the misdemeanor crimes claiming to be a
“representative” of defendant . The State accuses defendant of asking the alleged
victim to take down a social media post containing an image of defendant and stating
05/17/24

2

that defendant was contemplating legal action if the image was not removed from
the social media account. Based on these alleged actions, the State charged defendant
with obstruction of justice , La. R.S. 14:130.1; unlawful practice of law , La. R.S.
37:213(A); public intimidation, La. R.S. 14:122; and witness intimidation La. R.S.
14:129.1. Assuming the facts alleged by the State to be true, we find the State cannot
conceivably satisfy the elements of any of the four felony offenses. Accordingly, we
reverse the ruling of the trial court denying defendant’s motion to quash as to these
four offenses. We remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings in
connection with the four remaining misdemeanor charges.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.