No. 96-K-0670 Precedential Processed

State v. Foster

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed June 28, 1996 · 675 So. 2d 1101

Cited by

State v. Brown 193 So. 3d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Thomas 138 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Paul 126 So. 3d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Dillon 72 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Sorden 45 So. 3d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Baptiste 995 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Patterson 737 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Wise 684 So. 2d 408 La. 1996
State ex rel. Martin v. State 679 So. 2d 414 La. 1996

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Estill 614 So. 2d 709
City of Baton Rouge v. Wheat 377 So. 2d 1234

Opinion text

In re Foster, Herbert; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, *1102 Div. “J” No. 343-037; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 95KA-0585. Granted in part; denied in part. The single attempt at domiciliary service upon relator by leaving the subpoena with an unidentified Ms. Lewis, who indicated that she did not see relator often at that address and refused to sign the return, did not establish that relator had actual notice of the proceedings and did not discharge the state’s heavy burden “to exercise due diligence in discovering the whereabouts of the defendant as well as in taking appropriate steps to secure his presence for trial once it has found him.” State v. Estill, 614 So.2d 709, 710 (La.1993). This case is remanded to the district court for purposes of reopening the hearing on relator’s motion to quash. The state may present evidence of what additional steps, if any, it took to execute the capias issued after relator’s failure to appear in court and thereby secure his presence at trial. Cf., City of Baton Rouge v. Wheat, 377 So.2d 1234 (La.1970). Relator may also present evidence on the question of whether he absented himself from his usual abode or had actual notice of the arraignment for which he failed to appear. La.C.Cr.P. art. 579 A(1) and (3). The district court is to rule anew on the basis of the expanded record. Relator may appeal from an adverse ruling. In all other respects, the application is denied. LEMMON and BLEICH, JJ., would deny the writ. JOHNSON, J., not on panel.