STATE v. DAQUIN, 184 So.3d 728 (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals of California
Number: inlaco20151112381
Visitors: 40
Filed: Nov. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 09, 2015
Summary: CRAIN , J. The State of Louisiana appeals the trial court's ruling quashing a bill of information charging the defendant, Brandi Daquin, with carrying a weapon while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance (synthetic marijuana), a violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14:95E. 1 This is a companion case to State v. Daquin, 15-0160 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/9/15), 184 So.3d 724 . In both cases, the defendants argued that on the date of the alleged offense it was not illegal to possess
Summary: CRAIN , J. The State of Louisiana appeals the trial court's ruling quashing a bill of information charging the defendant, Brandi Daquin, with carrying a weapon while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance (synthetic marijuana), a violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14:95E. 1 This is a companion case to State v. Daquin, 15-0160 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/9/15), 184 So.3d 724 . In both cases, the defendants argued that on the date of the alleged offense it was not illegal to possess ..
More
CRAIN, J.
The State of Louisiana appeals the trial court's ruling quashing a bill of information charging the defendant, Brandi Daquin, with carrying a weapon while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance (synthetic marijuana), a violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14:95E.1 This is a companion case to State v. Daquin, 15-0160 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/9/15), 184 So.3d 724. In both cases, the defendants argued that on the date of the alleged offense it was not illegal to possess UR-144, the chemical substance the defendants admittedly possessed, and that UR-144 was not a controlled substance analogue. However, the bill of information does not charge the defendant with possessing UR-144. Accepting the facts on the face of the bill of information as true, the defendant was validly charged with a violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14:95E. The defendants' arguments regarding possession of UR-144 are factual defenses to the merits of the charges and, for the reasons set forth in the companion case, are not proper for resolution by a motion to quash. Consequently, we reverse the trial court's ruling on the motion to quash and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
FootNotes
1. The record reveals two different spellings of the defendant's last name, Daquin and D'Aquin. We have used the spelling that appears in the bill of information.
Source: Leagle
