Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

602 So. 2d 718

Docket No. 92-KK-1083.

State v. Adkisson

STATE of Louisiana v. Arvine ADKISSON.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided June 26, 1992.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1992-06-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“As to any offense committed more than four years prior to the effective date of Act 436 of 1988, amending Article 573, the state must prove that the victim was under the domination or control of the offender while under seventeen years of age at the time of the offense and that such relationship and status did not cease to exist more than four years prior to the effective date of the amending act; otherwise, the four-year time limitation of Article 572 which accrued prior to the effective date of the amending act bars prosecution of any such offense. The amending act deleted the domination and control element of the time limitation exception. As to any offense committed more than four years prior to the institution of prosecution, except those committed more than four years prior to the effective date of the amending act as previously described, the state need only prove that the victim was under seventeen years of age at the time of the offense and that such status did not cease to exist, that is, that the victim did not become seventeen, more than four years prior to the institution of prosecution.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including State v. Farris, 648 So. 2d 490 - State v. Hughes

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-06-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2017

1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

50199220002010decided

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 →

¶1*719 PER CURIAM.

¶2The state's application for writs is granted in part and denied in part.

¶3In this prosecution for two counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:81, the court of appeal on defendant's application for writs correctly held that hearsay evidence of the victims' ages was not admissible in the hearing on defendant's motion seeking dismissal of the case under LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 572 for failure to institute prosecution within four years after the offenses were committed. LSA-C.E. Art. 1101(A) and (B)(8). Although a hearing on a motion, it is one that could result in dismissal of the case.

¶4The order of the court of appeal remanding the case for a second hearing is amended and clarified as follows.

¶5The state has the burden of proving application of the time limitation exception provided in LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 573(4). As to any offense committed more than four years prior to the effective date of Act 436 of 1988, amending Article 573, the state must prove that the victim was under the domination or control of the offender while under seventeen years of age at the time of the offense and that such relationship and status did not cease to exist more than four years prior to the effective date of the amending act; otherwise, the four-year time limitation of Article 572 which accrued prior to the effective date of the amending act bars prosecution of any such offense.

¶6The amending act deleted the domination and control element of the time limitation exception. As to any offense committed more than four years prior to the institution of prosecution, except those committed more than four years prior to the effective date of the amending act as previously described, the state need only prove that the victim was under seventeen years of age at the time of the offense and that such status did not cease to exist, that is, that the victim did not become seventeen, more than four years prior to the institution of prosecution.

¶7Otherwise, the writ is denied.

¶8WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

/602/so2d/718 · .json · Public domain