State v. Bunnell

STATE of Louisiana v. Dale BUNNELL.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided June 12, 1987.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1987-06-12

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“statement on the record at the time of his guilty plea that his plea was conditioned upon his agreement with the district attorney to reserve the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress was sufficient to constitute an oral motion for appeal under C.Cr.P. art 914.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Richardson

“Appeals are favored in law, and appeals should not be dismissed on hypertechnical interpretations of a statute which can be reasonably interpreted to preserve the appeal, particularly in the absence of any claim of prejudice by the opposing party.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 839 So. 2d 271 - State v. Armant

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-06-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2017

10 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1PER CURIAM.

¶2Granted. The judgment of the court of appeal dismissing relator's appeal is reversed, and the appeal is reinstated. Relator's statement on the record at the time of his guilty plea that his plea was conditioned upon his agreement with the district attorney to reserve the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress was sufficient to constitute an oral motion for appeal under C.Cr.P. art. 914. The trial judge, the prosecution and the defense understood at the time that the matter was being appealed, and there were no objections when the formal written motion was filed more than five days later. Appeals are favored in law, and appeals should not be dismissed on hypertechnical interpretations of a statute which can be reasonably interpreted to preserve the appeal, particularly in the absence of any claim of prejudice by the opposing party.