¶1Granted. The ruling of the district court denying the state’s motion for a continuance of the trial is reversed. The interests of judicial economy require that all of the counts remaining of the original indictment returned against respondent be tried together in a single proceeding unless properly severed. The district court should not reset this case for trial until the merits of all of its rulings with respect to the remaining counts, including its partial quashing of five of the counts presently at issue in the court of appeal, have been finally resolved upon timely application for review by either the state or the defense.
835 So. 2d 1286
State v. Odom
Decided December 5, 2002
Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 2002-12-05
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 2008
3 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“Granted. The ruling of the district court denying the state's motion for a continuance of the trial is reversed. The interests of judicial economy require that all of the counts remaining of the original indictment returned against respondent be tried together in a single proceeding unless properly severed. The district court should not reset this case for trial until the merits of all of its rulings with respect to the remaining counts, including its partial quashing of five of the counts presently at issue in the court of appeal, have been finally resolved upon timely application for review by either the state or the defense.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including 993 So. 2d 663 - State v. Odom
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2002-12-05
View the full empirical analysis of this case →