748 So. 2d 25 - State v. Pratt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A motion to quash is the proper vehicle to assert that the time limitation for the commencement of trial is untimely. La. C.Cr.P. art. 532(7); State v. Duncan, 29,896 (La.App.2d Cir.10/29/97), 702 So.2d 328 . When a defendant has brought an apparently meritorious motion to quash based on prescription, the State bears a heavy burden to demonstrate either an interruption or a suspension of time such that prescription will not have tolled. State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.01/14/94), 630 So.2d 1284 . The two-year time limit is suspended when a defendant files a preliminary plea. La.C.Cr.P. art. 580; State v. Brooks, 505 So.2d 714 (La.1987). Where the prescription is suspended, the relevant period is not counted toward the two-year time limitation. State v. Harris, 29,574 (La.App. 2d Cir.05/07/97), 694 So.2d 626 . The suspension lasts from the time that the defendant's preliminary plea is filed until the court rules thereon. State v. Cranmer, 306 So.2d 698 (La.1975). In the present case, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence on August 22, 1996. A motion to suppress is a preliminary plea which suspends the two-year time limit. The trial court never ruled on the motion (in fact, it was never heard); therefore, the two-year time period was suspended on August 22, 1996, and it did not ever begin to run again. Defendant's motion to quash was properly denied.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 786 So. 2d 317 - State v. Oliver

2. “Duncan I "), the trial court felt constrained by that decision and granted the motion. [2] DISCUSSION Trial of a non-capital felony case must be held within two years from the date of institution of the prosecution. La.C.Cr.P. art. 578(2). "Institution of prosecution”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 786 So. 2d 317 - State v. Oliver

3. “the finding of an indictment, or the filing of an information, or affidavit, which is designed to serve as the basis of a trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 786 So. 2d 317 - State v. Oliver