HUGHES, J.

This case involves an alleged "agreement not to prosecute," under which the defense claimed that in exchange for the defense providing the names of witnesses who would testify before the grand jury, the sharing of defense attorney work product, and the waiving of the spousal privilege as to the grand jury testimony of the defendant's wife, the prosecution agreed to abide by the grand jury indictment, whether manslaughter or second degree murder. When the grand jury returned a manslaughter indictment, the State nevertheless presented the case to the grand jury again, approximately seven-and-one-half months after the first indictment, and procured an indictment for second degree murder. The defendant filed a motion to quash, alleging the prosecution failed to abide by the agreement. The district court granted the motion, quashing the second degree murder indictment. On appeal, the appellate court reversed. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the appellate court and reinstate the district court ruling.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 27, 2013 Ronald Harris, Sr., pastor of Tabernacle of Praise Church in Lake Charles, Louisiana, was shot and killed during a church service by the defendant, Woodrow Karey, Jr. Mr. Karey thereafter surrendered to police, stating, "He raped my wife."

Several conferences were held between defense counsel and the prosecution, which resulted in defense counsel providing the prosecution with a list of four witnesses, along with a written summary of the substance of the testimony that would be provided by these witnesses, and it was agreed these witnesses would testify before the grand jury. The defendant also agreed to waive the spousal privilege as to his wife's testimony before the grand jury. Further, the parties agreed that the matter would be "fairly" presented to the grand jury, and the grand jury would decide the appropriate charge (manslaughter or second degree murder). The defense alleged the parties also agreed that they would abide by the decision of the grand jury, and the defendant understood this meant the matter would not subsequently be brought back to a grand jury. The defendant's wife and the witnesses named by the defense testified before the grand jury, which indorsed the manslaughter indictment "a true bill" and the second degree murder indictment "not a true bill." Prosecution was instituted against the defendant for manslaughter, a violation of La. R.S. 14:31, with the filing of the indictment on November 14, 2013.

Sometime after the first grand jury indictment, a different lead prosecutor was placed in charge of the case. Thereafter, the State returned to the grand jury to present "more evidence" on the instant offense, and on June 26, 2014 the grand jury indicted the defendant with second degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. The State then dismissed the manslaughter prosecution and went forward with the second degree murder prosecution.

On August 8, 2014 the defendant filed a motion to quash the second degree murder indictment, contending: (1) the State breached the agreement to present the case to the first grand jury and to abide by the grand jury decision, in exchange for defense counsel's assistance and cooperation; and (2) although La. C.Cr.P. art. 3861 authorizes a subsequent indictment or information for the same offense following a grand jury's failure to indict, Article 386 does not authorize subsequent indictment or information for the same offense when the grand jury does indict the defendant for a lesser charge on the same offense.2

Following a January 6, 2015 hearing on the defendant's motion to quash, the district court found that the result desired by both the defense and prosecution from the initial grand jury proceeding was a manslaughter indictment, that there was an "implicit understanding" between the defense and the prosecution "that both sides would live with the result of the initial grand jury — either Manslaughter or Second Degree Murder," and for these reasons the defense revealed information "not otherwise available to the [S]tate." The district court concluded that the State was bound to "what was at the time its desired result" and granted the motion to quash the second degree murder indictment.

On appeal by the State, the appellate court reversed the grant of the motion to quash and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. State v. Karey, 15-0522 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/12/15), 180 So.3d 500. This court granted the defendant's subsequent writ application. State v. Karey, 16-0377 (La. 10/28/16), 213 So.3d 389.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Motion to Quash

The concept of fundamental fairness is inherent in the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Fourteenth Amendment and in La. Const. Art. I, § 2, which do not dictate a particular procedure, only a fundamentally fair result. See In re C.B., 97-2783, pp. 10-11 (La. 3/4/98), 708 So.2d 391, 397. The plea bargaining3 process presupposes fairness in agreements between an accused and a prosecutor. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261, 92 S.Ct. 495, 498, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). When a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled. Id., 404 U.S. at 262, 92 S.Ct. at 499.

As a general matter, in determining the validity of agreements not to prosecute or of plea agreements, the courts generally refer to analogous rules of contract law, although a defendant's constitutional right to fairness may be broader than his or her rights under the law of contract. State in Interest of E.C., 13-2483, p. 4 (La. 6/13/14), 141 So.3d 785, 787 (per curiam); State v. Cardon, 06-2305, p. 1 (La. 1/12/07), 946 So.2d 171, 171-72 (per curiam); State v. Givens, 99-3518, p. 14 (La. 1/17/01), 776 So.2d 443, 455; State v. Louis, 94-0761 (La. 11/30/94), 645 So.2d 1144, 1148-49; State v. Lewis, 539 So.2d 1199, 1204-05 (La. 1989); State v. Nall, 379 So.2d 731, 734 (La. 1980). See also United States v. Ringling, 988 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1993) ("Plea bargains rest on contractual principles, and each party should receive the benefit of its bargain. Yet, the analysis of the plea agreement must be conducted at a more stringent level than in a commercial contract because the rights involved are generally fundamental and constitutionally based.").

When a district attorney or assistant district attorney makes a good faith bargain with a person accused of a crime and the defendant, in reliance on that bargain, relinquishes a fundamental right, the State cannot repudiate the bargain. State v. Tanner, 425 So.2d 760, 763 (La. 1983); State v. Hingle, 242 La. 844, 859, 139 So.2d 205, 210 (1962) (on rehearing). "[C]ourts should give effect to such agreement[s], for it would not be consonant with the pledge of the [S]tate's public faith, reposed in these officers by the legislative branch of our government, to permit them to repudiate bargains made with persons accused of crimes who are acting in good faith, and, in reliance thereon, comply with their commitments by relinquishing valuable and fundamental rights." State v. Hingle, 242 La. at 865, 139 So.2d at 212. Nevertheless, "[a]bsent any showing of detrimental reliance prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused, or evidence of devious practice by the government such as bad-faith negotiation designed to psychologically probe the defense or gain some other improper advantage, the government remains free to withdraw from a plea agreement up to the time the plea is entered." State v. Caminita, 411 So.2d 13, 16 (La. 1982), cert denied, 459 U.S. 976, 103 S.Ct. 314, 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982) (emphasis added).

In the instant case, the district court's January 6, 2015 ruling stated as follows, in pertinent part:

The district court found as a matter of fact that the defense and the prosecution had a common goal to obtain a manslaughter indictment from the initial grand jury and that there was an "understanding" or agreement between the parties that they would "live with" or be bound by the conclusion of that grand jury. The district court further found that the disclosure of the defense attorney's work product to the prosecution not only aided the prosecution in achieving the common goal of a manslaughter indictment, but gave the prosecution an advantage by revealing defense strategy.

Because the complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts demands that deference be given to a trial court's discretionary decision, an appellate court is allowed to reverse a trial court on a motion to quash only if that finding represents an abuse of the trial court's discretion. State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La. 5/23/03), 847 So.2d 1198, 1206. In applying the abuse-of-discretion standard of review, the analysis may be further broken down into the component parts of the trial court decision. State v. Thompson, 11-0915, p. 13 (La. 5/8/12), 93 So.3d 553, 563. When a trial court makes findings of fact based on the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses, a reviewing court owes those findings great deference, and may not overturn those findings unless there is no evidence to support those findings. Id., 11-0915 at pp. 13-14, 93 So.3d at 563; State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 4 (La. 7/6/10), 45 So.3d 577, 580; State v. Hunt, 09-1589, p. 6 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So.3d 746, 751. See also La. Const. Art. V, § 5(C) ("In criminal matters, [the supreme court's] appellate jurisdiction extends only to questions of law."); La. Const. Art. V, § 10(B) ("In criminal cases [a court of appeal's] appellate jurisdiction extends only to questions of law."). Legal findings or conclusions of the trial court are reviewed de novo. Id., 11-0915 at p. 14, 93 So.3d at 563; State v. Hamdan, 12-1986, p. 6 (La. 3/19/13), 112 So.3d 812, 816; State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 3 (La. 7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501, 504. Thus, a trial court's ruling on a motion to quash can be found to be an abuse of discretion if the trial court's factual findings are not supported by evidence in the record or if the court's legal findings or conclusion are erroneous.

In this case, the evidence submitted during the January 6, 2015 hearing on the defendant's motion to quash provides a reasonable basis for the district court's factual findings, as revealed through the testimony of the four witnesses: then-District Attorney John DeRosier, Assistant District Attorney Hugo Holland, former Assistant District Attorney Brett Sandifer, and Defense Attorney Todd Clemons.

Then-District Attorney John DeRosier testified that because of the nature of this case, the prosecution was required to take it to a grand jury. Mr. DeRosier stated that, in a conversation with defense counsel Todd Clemons, Mr. Clemons (who is a former prosecutor) expressed concern that a prosecutor can "sway a Grand Jury one way or the other," and Mr. Clemons requested that he be allowed to present defense witnesses to the grand jury. Mr. DeRosier said that he told Mr. Clemons he could "present [his] witnesses and the Grand Jury's going to do what it's going to do." When asked by Mr. Clemons, on direct examination,4 whether he (Mr. DeRosier) had told him (Mr. Clemons) "that your [Mr. DeRosier's] goal was to lay it all out in front of the Grand Jury and let the Grand Jury make the call," Mr. DeRosier responded, "I don't remember those words, but that sounds like something I would say." When asked by Mr. Clemons whether "you [Mr. DeRosier] reached an agreement ultimately with me [Mr. Clemons] that the case would be fairly presented to the Grand Jury and the Grand Jury would determine the appropriate charge," Mr. DeRosier replied, "Yes ... I don't know if that's an agreement. I made that statement." Mr. DeRosier indicated that he did not personally present the case to the first grand jury, rather, Hugo Holland and Brett Sandifer were the prosecutors on the case at that time. Mr. DeRosier also testified that most agreements entered into with defendants are "verbal agreements," and although written agreements are sometimes used, "[i]t's fairly rare." Mr. DeRosier further testified that neither he, nor anyone in his presence, ever promised the defense that, if a manslaughter indictment were returned, the prosecution would not return to the grand jury to present further evidence.

Assistant District Attorney Hugo Holland testified that there was no "agreement" between the parties. He stated, "What I offered to you [Mr. Clemons] was that if there was information you wanted the Grand Jury to have, if you told me who the witnesses were, I'd be happy to put them in front of the Grand Jury." Mr. Holland further testified that he told Mr. Clemons, "I think that the Grand Jury could go either way, and it was probably a good idea for the Defense to provide me a list of witnesses that perhaps could push them towards a ... manslaughter charge." Mr. Holland clarified, "I don't have to, as a prosecutor, allow you [Mr. Clemons] or any other defense lawyer to present any evidence. I gave you the courtesy of doing that, and you gave me a list of names of people that you wanted to testify in front of the Grand Jury.... I agreed to let you give me the list and that I would present the witnesses."

With respect to testimony given by the defendant's wife, Janet Karey, before the grand jury, Mr. Holland testified, "I sent her a subpoena, and so it wasn't up to you [Mr. Clemons] to determine whether she testified or not.... That was not part of any agreement. I just told you she got a subpoena and she was testifying." When asked about a spousal privilege, Mr. Holland stated, "If she wanted to claim it [the spousal privilege] when she came in, that would be up to her. It's my legal opinion, that probably doesn't apply at Grand Jury, but had she chose to do so, then things might be different." Mr. Holland stated that Ms. Karey did not claim a spousal privilege when called to testify before the grand jury.

Mr. Holland further denied that he, or anyone in his presence, told the defense that the prosecution would refrain from ever presenting the grand jury with any additional evidence if a manslaughter indictment were to be returned. Mr. Holland further testified that he "received no concessions" from the defense and, to his knowledge, the defense did nothing that would ultimately be detrimental to the defendant's case. When asked if the defense detrimentally relied on anything that had occurred in the case, Mr. Holland responded, "I can't imagine how it would possibly be." Mr. Holland denied reaching any type of agreement with the defense, and he stated, "I don't have to reach an agreement with the Defense for anything related to Grand Jury actions." With respect to statements that the case would be "fairly presented" to the grand jury, Mr. Holland stated, "[T]hat's what every Grand Jury does, the case is fairly presented and they reach a decision." However, Mr. Holland further stated, "The agreement was, if there was one, that we were going to fairly present the evidence, which was done."

Former Assistant District Attorney Brett Sandifer testified that, although he previously worked for the Calcasieu Parish District Attorney's office, at the time of the hearing he was working as an Assistant Attorney General. Mr. Sandifer recalled that, after the defendant was arrested, but before he was charged, there was a telephone conference between the prosecution (Mr. DeRosier, himself, and possibly Mr. Holland) and the defense (Mr. Clemons and Mr. Johnson), during which Mr. DeRosier stated that the case was going to be presented to the grand jury for determination of the charge because "that's what we have to do on a case such as that.... [A]nytime you go to Grand Jury, that's what ... happens." Mr. Sandifer also indicated that Mr. DeRosier told Mr. Clemons that he would subpoena witnesses for the defense, if the defense provided a list of the witnesses.

When asked whether he recalled Mr. Clemons stating that the defense would discuss it and let the prosecution know "whether we would be participating in the Grand Jury," Mr. Sandifer stated that he remembered something like that. Mr. Sandifer acknowledged that a few days later he and Mr. Holland met with Mr. Clemons and Mr. Johnson in a conference room at the District Attorney's office to discuss the witnesses that the defense wanted to testify before the grand jury, the relationship of those witnesses to the defendant, and the nature of their testimony. Mr. Sandifer indicated that it was agreed that the witnesses would present testimony before the grand jury, and the grand jury would determine the appropriate charge.

In conjunction with Mr. Sandifer's testimony, Exhibit "D," in globo, was introduced, which included an email from Mr. Clemons to Mr. Sandifer regarding the defense witnesses, including a list of witness names and a summary of the proposed substance of each witness's testimony. Mr. Sandifer explained that, since some of the defense-requested witnesses were not mentioned in the incident report, either he or Mr. Holland had asked the defense for a summary of what these witnesses would likely say before the grand jury, and the emailed list contained a summary of what Mr. Clemons felt was relevant about each of the witnesses' testimony before the grand jury. Mr. Sandifer denied that the prosecution had agreed not to go back to the grand jury after the first indictment, maintaining they only agreed to present the witnesses requested by the defense to the grand jury. Mr. Sandifer emphasized that, in every case before the grand jury, it is the prosecutor's job to fairly present the evidence to the grand jury, and the grand jury then decides the appropriate charge.

Mr. Sandifer also testified that two bills were submitted to the grand jury, one for manslaughter and one for second degree murder; the grand jury returned a "true bill" as to manslaughter and a "no true bill" as to second degree murder. Mr. Sandifer further testified that the investigation was ongoing at the time the matter was before the first grand jury, noting that there was a "phone issue we still had to resolve" and there were witnesses that law enforcement had not interviewed. Mr. Sandifer indicated that even though there was no statute of limitations on the prosecution of murder, since the defendant was arrested in September 2013 for murder, there was a limited time period during which charges could be timely filed against the defendant, otherwise the defendant would have to be released from custody.5

Defense Attorney Todd Clemons, on examination by co-counsel, Adam Johnson, testified that he contacted Mr. DeRosier in October of 2013 to arrange a meeting to discuss the case, and a phone conference was set up for October 30, 2013. Mr. Clemons testified that, during the phone conference, Mr. DeRosier told him that the prosecution would "present the case to the Grand Jury and ... let the Grand Jury determine the appropriate charge." Mr. Clemons also testified that Mr. DeRosier told him that he could "present whatever witnesses you deem appropriate." Mr. Clemons stated that, in connection with their agreement, the defense was giving up "certain rights," including attorney work product.6 Mr. Clemons further testified that he "felt like [the District Attorney] wanted the cover of the Grand Jury to be able to give the [victim's] family the perception that this was the Grand Jury's decision and [the District Attorney] had no involvement with that," and for that reason the prosecution did not file a bill of information for manslaughter and instead took the case to the grand jury. Mr. Clemons also stated that he "got the impression [the District Attorney] needed us to cooperate... [b]ecause [the District Attorney] needed to have the cover, that this was why it went down that way."

With respect to Mr. Holland, Mr. Clemons testified:

Mr. Clemons implied that such assurances from the prosecutor would not have been necessary unless the parties were negotiating an agreement, which would require the trust of the defense attorneys (who could not legally be present during the grand jury proceedings) that the prosecution would elicit from the defense witnesses the testimony desired by the defense before the grand jury.

Mr. Clemons further testified, "[T]here were no conditions placed on the agreement... other than [the defense] presenting them with the witnesses, and the Grand Jury determining the appropriate charge. Nothing [sic] discussed what would happen after the Grand Jury determined the appropriate charge." When asked whether the prosecution ever specifically said they would never go back to the grand jury, Mr. Clemons said, "Absolutely not, because that was not contemplated." Mr. Clemons maintained that there was an agreement to let the first grand jury decide the appropriate charge, and they would all abide by that decision.

With respect to the testimony of the defendant's wife, Janet Karey, Mr. Clemons testified that Mr. Holland was adamant that she testify, quoting Mr. Holland as having said, "In order for this deal to happen, she has to testify.... [T]he Grand Jury must hear from her." Mr. Clemons indicated to Mr. Holland at that time that Ms. Karey was not one of their witnesses, and they did not feel she had anything beneficial to add to the case, noting that the spousal privilege had to be waived for her testimony. Mr. Clemons also stated, "We felt like her testifying would be the next-door neighbor of our client testifying.... [W]e felt like we certainly were giving up something by having her testify ... [b]ecause she could possibly testify about previous conversations she had had with her husband about what happened. Once she got in that Grand Jury ... we [had] no idea of what she would tell them." Mr. Clemons further indicated that a second grand jury was not mentioned to the defense until Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Killingsworth sent the defense an email on June 25, 2014, approximately seven-and-one-half months after the first indictment, saying that she was bringing the case back to the grand jury.8

Mr. Clemons further testified, "Under no circumstances would I give it [his attorney work product] to a prosecutor, but for hav[ing] an agreement with the prosecutor that could benefit my client. In this case we had an agreement with the prosecutor that if we gave them a summary of the witnesses who would testify, they would be honorable men and let this Grand Jury decide the appropriate [charge]." Mr. Clemons stated that his work product was the result of interviews with several defense witnesses, and the email he sent to the prosecutors contained a summary of "detailed extensive [d]efense work product." Mr. Clemons testified that he was required to give his work product to the prosecution as part of their agreement, stating that Mr. Holland told him he was not going to call the defense witnesses and let them just say what they wanted to say, so the defense would have to give him "some guidance as to what pertinent information they have." Mr. Clemons said, "[I]t was required in order to consummate this deal."

Mr. Clemons further related that he did not think reducing the agreement to writing was necessary because he thought he was dealing with honorable men. He stated, "Mr. Hugo Holland turned out to be an honorable man because he kept his word.... I think Mr. DeRosier is an honorable man, but for some reason he reneged on his word." Mr. Clemons confirmed that at some point Ms. Killingsworth took over as lead prosecutor (from Hugo Holland and Brett Sandifer), and she returned to the grand jury the second time and obtained the second degree murder indictment.

Mr. Clemons also testified that Mr. Holland's behavior immediately after presenting the case to the first grand jury was a confirmation of the existence of an agreement between them. During the grand jury presentation, Mr. Clemons and Mr. Johnson waited in the reception area of District Attorney's office, where Mr. Holland met them after the grand jury presentation concluded. Mr. Clemons indicated that, even though Mr. Holland could not yet divulge the decision reached by the grand jury, because it had not been filed with the court, Mr. Holland shook his (Mr. Clemons') hand and said, "You made the right decision, everything went well.... [I]t was successful." Mr. Clemons further stated:

Mr. Clemons related that he considered Mr. Holland's actions and statements at that time a "consummation" of their agreement and indicated Mr. Holland's intention to abide by the grand jury's manslaughter indictment.

In this case, the district court was presented with conflicting testimony. Defense Attorney Todd Clemons testified that, in exchange for sharing defense attorney work product (which identified witnesses to support the defense position that manslaughter was a more appropriate charge than second degree murder), along with engaging in cooperative discussions with the prosecution concerning presentation of the identified witness testimony to the grand jury, and in waiving the spousal privilege as to the defendant's wife's testimony before the grand jury, the prosecution agreed to submit the defense witnesses to the first grand jury and abide by that grand jury's decision as to the appropriate charge and proceed only on the charge that grand jury handed down. Contrarily, the State prosecutors testified that they had no agreement with the defense, but if they did, it was only to fairly present the evidence to the grand jury and allow the grand jury to decide the appropriate charge, as that is what the law requires. In ruling in the defendant's favor, granting the motion to quash and dismissing the second degree murder prosecution, the district court made the decision to credit the testimony of the defense over that of the prosecution and, in essence, granted specific performance of the agreement by ensuring that the prosecution of the defendant could proceed only on a manslaughter charge.

As stated hereinabove, when a trial court in a criminal case makes findings of fact based on the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses, a reviewing court may not overturn those findings unless there is no evidence to support those findings. State v. Thompson, 11-0915 at pp. 13-14, 93 So.3d at 563; State v. Wells, 08-2262 at p. 4, 45 So.3d at 580; State v. Hunt, 09-1589 at p. 6, 25 So.3d at 751. In this case, there was evidence in the record upon which the district court could have ruled either that there existed an agreement between the parties or that there was no agreement between the parties. The district court's decision to credit the defense testimony over that of the prosecution cannot be overturned. See Id. See also State v. Meredith, 35,026, p. 5 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/26/01), 796 So.2d 109, 113 (holding that because the court credited defense testimony over prosecution testimony and there was a reasonable basis in the record for the trial court finding that an agreement existed between the defense and the prosecution, the decision could not be disturbed on appeal).9

Given that we cannot say the district court erred in finding as a matter of fact that there was an agreement between the parties, the only remaining question is whether, in light of this agreement, the State was entitled to thereafter return to the grand jury to seek a second degree murder indictment against the defendant. Since such conduct would contravene the substance of the agreement as found by the district court, it would constitute either a withdrawal from, or breach of, the agreement.

As stated herein, the government may only withdraw from a plea agreement or an agreement not to prosecute if there has been no detrimental reliance, prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused, and/or no evidence of devious practice by the government such as bad-faith negotiation designed to psychologically probe the defense or gain some other improper advantage. See State v. Caminita, 411 So.2d at 16. The defendant asserts that, although he did not relinquish his constitutional right against self-incrimination, his constitutional right to due process was violated by the fundamentally unfair conduct of the State, which he contends shocks the conscience, offends a sense of justice, and constitutes "prosecutorial misconduct."10

When a defendant enters into such a plea agreement (or agreement not to prosecute) with the government, the government takes on certain obligations. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 137, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1430, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If those obligations are not met, the defendant is entitled to seek a remedy, which might in some cases be rescission of the agreement and in others specific performance (i.e., requiring the government to fully comply with the agreement). See Id.; Santobello v. N.Y., 404 U.S. at 263, 92 S.Ct. at 499. See also State v. Louis, 94-0761 at p. 11, 645 So.2d at 1150 ("Considerations of constitutional fairness generally come into play after the formation of an agreement not to prosecute and generally involve the performance of the defendant's obligations under the agreement.").

In this case, the defendant substantially complied with the terms of the agreement and detrimentally relied upon its provisions, as the appellate court dissent aptly summarized:

State v. Karey, 180 So.3d at 513 (dissent).

Furthermore, the prosecution in this case did not establish any justification for withdrawing from the agreement, such as a breach of the agreement by the defendant or failure of cause.

In prior cases allowing the prosecution to withdraw from an agreement not to prosecute or from a plea agreement, the withdrawal was shown to be justified as the agreements were unenforceable for failure of cause unattributable to the prosecution, although certain statements made by the defendants in reliance on the existence of the agreements were deemed inadmissible in any subsequent trial of these defendants. See State v. Lewis, 539 So.2d at 1204-06 (wherein a plea agreement was ruled unenforceable for failure of cause, since the defense and the prosecution had bargained for something other than what they could actually receive);11 State v. Nall, 379 So.2d at 733-34 (wherein a plea agreement was nullified for a failure of cause when the defendant's statement, placing primary culpability on his co-defendant, proved to be false).12

However, in cases in which the prosecution failed to establish justification for withdrawal from an agreement with a defendant, specific performance (in the form of enforcement of the agreement) has been ordered. See State v. Louis, 94-0761 at pp. 12-13, 645 So.2d 1150-51 (wherein an agreement not to prosecute, in exchange for the defendant's cooperation with a federal drug enforcement agency, was found to be enforceable against the prosecution, who had withdrawn from, thus breaching, the agreement for a reason not proven at the hearing on the defendant's motion to quash the indictment);13 State v. Tanner, 425 So.2d at 764 (wherein the defendant's bargain with the prosecution was enforced, when the prosecution failed to honor its agreement not to prosecute for negligent homicide if the jury returned a no true bill, in exchange for the grand jury testimony of the defendant and that of another defense witness);14 State v. Hingle, 242 La. at 867-68, 139 So.2d at 213 (wherein the defendant's plea bargain was enforced, upon a finding that the prosecution's reason for withdrawing was not valid).15

In the instant case, the prosecution failed to establish valid justification for withdrawing from the agreement with the defense, during the hearing on the motion to quash the indictment. Although former Assistant District Attorney Brett Sandifer made conclusory statements, during the hearing, that the investigation was ongoing at the time the matter was before the first grand jury, indicating there was a "phone issue we still had to resolve" and there were witnesses that law enforcement had not interviewed, those statements alone do not provide a substantive reason for withdrawing from the agreement not to prosecute. The State further intimated, in argument to this court, that additional investigation after the initial grand jury indictment for manslaughter produced new evidence, which tended to establish that the defendant may have planned his attack on the victim from a date and under circumstances that would indicate he did not commit the act in a "heat of blood," as required by La. R.S. 14:31(A).16 However, no evidence was adduced during the district court hearing to substantiate those assertions.17

Because the defendant performed under the agreement with the prosecution and the prosecution failed to show justification for withdrawing from the agreement, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting specific performance to the defendant in this case and quashing the second degree murder indictment.18

Reliance by District Court on State v. Tanner Concurring Opinion

The State and the appellate court criticize the reasoning of the district court in this case in, inter alia, relying on the concurring opinion in State v. Tanner (particularly the language stating that "our judicial system cannot countenance prosecutorial misconduct which puts an unwary defendant at an unfair disadvantage," and that "We cannot allow the state to enter into a supposed bargain which causes the defendant to reveal information not otherwise available to the state in carrying its burden of proving the defendant's guilt in a criminal prosecution, only to have the state renege on the deal once it discovers chinks in the defendant's tactical armor.").

However, the comments in the State v. Tanner concurrence are in accord with the principles announced in State v. Caminita, supra ("Absent any showing of detrimental reliance prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused, or evidence of devious practice by the government such as bad-faith negotiation designed to psychologically probe the defense or gain some other improper advantage, the government remains free to withdraw from a plea agreement up to the time the plea is entered.") (emphasis added), and in State v. Louis, supra ("Considerations of constitutional fairness generally come into play after the formation of an agreement not to prosecute and generally involve the performance of the defendant's obligations under the agreement."). See State v. Louis, 94-0761 at p. 11, 645 So.2d at 1150; State v. Caminita, 411 So.2d at 16. Therefore, we find no merit in the State's argument on this issue.

Timeliness of Motion to Quash

We find no error in the appellate court's refusal to consider the argument made by the State, re-urged in brief to this court, that the defendant's motion to quash was untimely filed (as filed under the dismissed manslaughter case number 26060-13) and not the subsequent second degree murder case number 17151-14). The appellate court ruled that, pursuant to Rule 1-3 of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal ("The Courts of Appeal will review only issues which were submitted to the trial court...."), since the State did not raise the issue in the district court, it could not be considered on appeal. See State v. Karey, 15-0522 at pp. 4-5, 180 So.3d at 504. Although other preliminary matters were discussed in open court on the day of the January 6, 2015 hearing, no objection was raised about the timeliness of the motion to quash.19 Therefore, we find no merit in the State's argument on this issue.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the appellate court erred in overturning the district court's factual determination that there was an agreement not to prosecute between the defendant and the prosecution in this case, since there were was evidence in the record supporting the district court's factual findings that the defense and the prosecution had a common goal to obtain a manslaughter indictment from the initial grand jury and that there was an "understanding" or agreement between the parties that they would "live with" or be bound by the conclusion of that grand jury. See State v. Thompson; State v. Wells; State v. Hunt; supra. Further, because the defendant performed under the agreement, providing witnesses and attorney work product, as well as waiving the spousal privilege as to his wife's testimony before the grand jury, the prosecution gained an unfair advantage and could not thereafter withdraw from the agreement without a valid justification to withdraw, pursuant to the principles of fundamental fairness set forth in State v. Caminita and other jurisprudence cited. The prosecution did not prove it had a valid justification to withdraw from its agreement not to prosecute during the hearing on the motion to quash held in this case. Therefore, we conclude that, since there was no factual or legal error in the district court ruling, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to quash the second degree murder indictment, and the appellate court erred in reversing the district court decision.

DECREE

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the appellate court is reversed, and the district court judgment, granting the defendant's motion to quash and dismissing the second degree murder indictment, is reinstated. Further, the stay order issued by this court on August 31, 2016 is hereby lifted.

APPELLATE COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REINSTATED; STAY LIFTED.

GUIDRY, Justice, dissents for the reasons assigned by Justice Clark.

CLARK, Justice, dissents and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, Justice, dissents and assigns reasons.

GENOVESE, Justice, concurs in the result.

Clark, Justice, dissents and assigns reasons.

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for the reasons that follow. I do not see any rational basis in the record to support a finding that an agreement existed between the prosecutor and the defense that both would be bound by the charge returned by the first grand jury. The factual finding by the trial court to the contrary was based in part on two errors: 1) that the State believed manslaughter to be the appropriate charge and was only pursuing the second degree murder charge to eradicate "family problems" in a "high profile" case. (Transcript pp. 126-127) and 2) that the concurrence in State v. Tanner, 425 So.2d 760 (La. 1983) expanded the law regarding the enforcement of pre-trial agreements to those agreements that do not affect fundamental constitutional rights.

First, as the State points out, because there was a potential charge of second degree murder, which is punishable by "life imprisonment without benefit[s]", the matter was required to be presented to a grand jury. See La. R.S. 14:30.1(B) and La. Code Crim.P. art. 437. The repeated assertions by the prosecutors that they agreed to fairly present the case to the grand jury, then, was nothing more than a commitment by the State to do what the law requires it to do. The defendant's tendering of his witness list and a summary of the witnesses' testimony in exchange for the State's agreement to fairly present the case to the grand jury does not amount to any sort of bargain. Rather, the agreement, which included a fair presentation of the defendant's case, was a professional courtesy, at most, and a simple adherence to the law, at a minimum. That the defendant inferred the State would not only fairly present the case to the grand jury, but would also be bound by the grand jury's charge, does not prove the existence of any such agreement. It only proves, perhaps, a hope or an unjustified expectation. A review of the record does not evidence any meeting of the minds to relinquish the opportunity to seek a more serious charge at a separate grand jury, which the law allows and no purported agreement prevented. This finding is bolstered by the lack of a plea deal or a written agreement not to prosecute.

While implicit in my finding that there was no agreement in the first place, I write additionally to expressly state I find no detrimental reliance, bad-faith negotiation, or prosecutorial misconduct. Instead, I find this case fits within the vast prosecutorial authority to charge offenses and fairly present the case to a grand jury, even convening multiple grand juries if the circumstances so warrant.

Second, the trial court committed legal error in relying on a concurring opinion in Tanner, supra. The Tanner majority found a defendant must give up a fundamental right as part of the bargain in order for the agreement to be binding. The concurrence expanded beyond the fundamental right requirement to include scenarios of "unfair disadvantage" and the disclosure of favorable information. This "principle of judicial integrity[,]" while laudable, is not the law as expressed by the Tanner majority or subsequent jurisprudence. Here, the defendant did not relinquish his right against self-incrimination by testifying nor did he forfeit any other fundamental right. Instead, he provided information that could have been discoverable by the State. Indeed, the defendant's wife was subpoenaed by the State and had an obligation to appear regardless of what the defendant's wishes were about her testifying. Thus, either under an abuse of discretion standard or a de novo standard of review for legal errors, I would affirm the ruling of the court of appeal, which reversed the trial court's grant of the motion to quash.

CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons:

I dissent. The plurality opinion finds an enforceable agreement based on "evidence in the record upon which the district court could have ruled either that there existed an agreement between the parties or that there was no agreement between the parties." State v. Karey, 2016-0377, op., at 1198. But because the purported agreement at issue in this case was not reduced to writing,1 this left a record revealing only loose chatter between the prosecutors and defense counsel. With that record, I believe the plurality opinion ignores missing elements of an enforceable agreement to abide by the first grand jury's decision.

Under these circumstances, I do not believe the feeble testimony of defense counsel alone adequately supports the trial court's finding of an enforceable agreement, which requires a "meeting of the minds." See Read v. Willwoods Cmty., 2014-1475, p. 5 (La. 3/17/15), 165 So.3d 883, 887; see also State v. Smith, 452 So.2d 160 (La. 1984) (remanding for a hearing to determine whether there was "a meeting of the minds between the defendant, the defense counsel, the prosecutor and the trial judge" as to a plea bargain). For instance, the State did not need to go before the grand jury to secure an indictment for manslaughter,2 so it would have received no benefit from entering into such an agreement. Additionally, as part of this alleged agreement, defense counsel provided the State with a witness list and summaries of anticipated testimony, and facilitated the cooperation of the defendant's spouse. But most, if not all, of this information would be discoverable in advance of trial. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 725.1(B)(1). That there does not appear to be any rationale for the State to enter into such an agreement undermines the trial court's finding that there was an enforceable agreement.

The plurality opinion also fails to identify any fundamental right purportedly relinquished by this defendant, such as the privilege against self-incrimination. Under State v. Tanner, 425 So.2d 760 (La. 1983), even if there was an agreement here, the State can withdraw from that agreement if the defendant has not relinquished a fundamental right in reliance upon it. Id. at 763. ("When a district attorney or assistant district attorney makes a good faith bargain with a person accused of a crime and defendant, in reliance on that bargain, relinquishes such a fundamental right as the privilege against self-incrimination, the state cannot repudiate the bargain."). In other words, under Tanner, if the defendant does not relinquish a fundamental right, then this is not an enforceable agreement.

In sum, I would find the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to quash, reinstate the second degree murder indictment, and remand for further proceedings.