Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

620 So. 2d 816

Docket No. 93-K-0976.

State v. Hornung

STATE of Louisiana v. Marguerite HORNUNG.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided June 25, 1993.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1993-06-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Whenever two or more misdemeanors are joined in accordance with Article 493 in the same indictment or information, the maximum aggregate penalty that may be imposed for the misdemeanors shall not exceed imprisonment for more than six months or a fine of more than one thousand dollars, or both.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including State v. Thompson, 806 So. 2d 137 - State v. Barr

“The decision of whether to charge an accused in one bill of information with multiple offenses, or in separate bills of information for each offense, is within the discretion of the district attorney alone. It is only when the district attorney exercises that discretion and joins the offenses in the same bill of information that the defendant is entitled to the reduced sentencing exposure of Article 493.1. Likewise, it is only when the district attorney joins the offenses in accordance with Article 493 in the same indictment or information that the state may avoid a jury trial. [Citations omitted.]”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including State v. Thompson, 806 So. 2d 137 - State v. Barr

Relies on 337 So. 2d 475 - State v. McCarroll · 404 So. 2d 954 - State v. Williams · 458 So. 2d 1304 - State v. Odell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-06-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 2015

19 state decisions

130199320002010decided

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*817 PER CURIAM.

¶2Defendant was charged with three misdemeanor offenses in two separate bills of information in the Second Parish Court of Jefferson Parish. According to the state's application, the offenses were consolidated for trial pursuant to a state motion. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit found the existence of an error patent in that the defendant was entitled to trial by jury but the record did not establish that she had intelligently and knowingly waived that right. The appellate court noted that the parish court lacks jurisdiction in criminal cases which require a jury trial, reversed the convictions, and remanded the matter for retrial. 613 So.2d 638.

¶3In finding that the defendant had been entitled to trial by jury, the appellate court reasoned that La.C.Cr.P. art. 493.1 did not apply to the instant case because at least two of the offenses consolidated had not been "joined in accordance with Article 493 in the same indictment or information." La.C.Cr.P. art. 493.1. Accordingly, the consolidation did not serve to deprive the defendant of her right to trial by jury in exchange for a reduction in sentencing exposure. The court then went on to find that the total potential punishment for the consolidated offenses exceeded six months imprisonment, thereby entitling the defendant to trial by jury under the holding in State v. McCarroll,337 So.2d 475 (La. 1976).

¶4The reasoning of the Fifth Circuit is correct. See State v. Odell,458 So.2d 1304 (La.1984). We further note that this reasoning applies regardless of which party instigates consolidation. The decision of whether to charge an accused in one bill of information with multiple offenses, or in separate bills of information for each offense, is within the discretion of the district attorney alone. It is only when the district attorney exercises that discretion and joins the offenses in the same bill of information that the defendant is entitled to the reduced sentencing exposure of Article 493.1. See id. at 1306. Likewise, it is only when the district attorney joins the offenses in accordance with Article 493 in the same indictment or information that the state may avoid a jury trial. See State v. Johnson,458 So.2d 1301 (La.1984). Accordingly, even if the defendant had moved to consolidate the offenses under La.C.Cr.P. art. 706, she could not be deprived of her right to trial by jury. See State v. Williams,404 So.2d 954 (La.1981); State v. Bouche,485 So.2d 950 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1986).

¶5The opinion of the appellate court is affirmed.

¶6LEMMON and KIMBALL, JJ., dissent.

¶7WATSON, J., not on panel.

/620/so2d/816 · .json · Public domain