State v. Baham
| Decision Date | 12 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021 KA 1285 |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JEFFERY FLOYD BAHAM |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
JEFFERY FLOYD BAHAM
No. 2021 KA 1285
Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit
April 12, 2022
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the Twenty -Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St. Tammany State of Louisiana Docket Number 1787- F-2021 Honorable Vincent J. Lobello, Judge Presiding
Warren L. Montgomery Matthew Caplan J. Bryant Clark, Jr. Covington, LA Counsel for Appellant, State of Louisiana
James Hoeffgen Covington, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Jeffery Floyd Baham
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., PENZATO, AND HESTER, JJ.
WHIPPLE, C.J.
The defendant, Jeffery Floyd Baham, was charged by bill of information with possession of methamphetamine (less than two grams), a violation of LSA-R.S. 40:967(C)(1). The defendant pled not guilty. The defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of information pursuant to LSA-R.S. 14:403.10. Following a hearing on the matter, the trial court granted the motion to quash. The State now appeals, designating one assignment of error. We reverse the trial court's ruling granting the motion to quash and remand.
FACTS
The following facts were established at the motion-to-quash hearing. On the night of January 25, 2021, based on a 911 call regarding a man slumped over in his truck, St. Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office Deputies Brandon Crain and Ben Sadowski were dispatched to Leon Alley in Folsom. Deputy Crain's body camera recorded the scene. The defendant was alone, sleeping in his truck. After Deputy Crain tapped a couple of times on the rolled-up window, the defendant woke up. Deputies on both sides opened the front truck doors and asked the defendant if he was alright. The defendant appeared groggy and somewhat intoxicated. Firefighters and EMS were dispatched to the scene. The defendant told Deputy Crain he had been working all day and fell asleep. The defendant got out of his truck and sat on his open tailgate while a paramedic, Stephan Silas, examined him. Deputy Crain found a torch lighter and two glass pipes in the truck.[1] According to Deputy Crain, the pipes contained residue.
Deputy Crain then asked the defendant if he had anything on him. The defendant replied that he had a little "meth" in his pocket, which Deputy Crain retrieved. The defendant was arrested and taken to jail.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
In its sole assignment of error, the State argues the trial court erred in granting the motion to quash the bill of information based on LSA-R.S. 14:403.10. Specifically, the State contends the defendant was not in need of medical assistance, did not receive medical assistance for an overdose, and that the trial court erroneously conflated the "overdose" requirement with the "in need of medical assistance" requirement.
When a trial court grants or denies a motion to quash, factual and credibility determinations should not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial court's discretion. State v. Welch, 2012-1531 (La.App. 1st Cir. 3/22/13), 115 So.3d 490, 502. However, a trial court's legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review. State v. Welch, 115 So.3d at 502.
A motion to quash is, essentially, a mechanism whereby pretrial pleas are urged, i.e., pleas which do not go to the merits of the charge. At a hearing on such a motion, evidence is limited to procedural matters and the question of factual guilt or innocence is not before the court. See LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 531, et. seq.; State v. Byrd, 96-2302 (La. 3/13/98), 708 So.2d 401, 411, cert denied sub nom, Peltier v. Louisiana, 525 U.S. 876, 119 S.Ct. 179, 142 L.Ed.2d 146 (1998).
In considering a motion to quash, a court must accept as true the facts contained in the bill of information and in the bill of particulars, and determine as a matter of law and from the face of the pleadings, whether a crime has been charged. While evidence may be adduced, such may not include a defense on the merits. State v. Byrd, 708 So.2d at 411 (citing State v. Gerstenberger, 260 La. 145, 150, 255 So.2d 720, 722 (1971); State v. Masino, 214 La. 744, 749, 38 So.2d 622, 623 (1949)
("The fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment")).
The State argues herein that the trial court misapplied the provisions of LSA-R.S. 14:403.10 and thereby abused its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to quash. Louisiana Revised Statute 14:403.10(B) provides:
A person who experiences a drug-related overdose and is in need of medical assistance shall not be charged, prosecuted or penalized for possession of a controlled dangerous substance under the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law if the evidence for possession of a controlled substance was obtained as a result of the overdose and the need for medical assistance.
In State v. Brooks, 2016-345 (La.App. 5th Cir. 12/28/16), 210 So.3d 514, 519, and State v. Jago, 2016-346 (La.App. 5th Cir. 12/28/16), 209 So.3d 1078, 1082, writ denied, 2017-0183 (La. 11/17/17), 228 So.3d 1218 (per curiam) both decided the same day, the fifth circuit addressed the meaning of overdose in LSA-R.S. 14:403.10(B):
As written, La. R.S. 14:403.10 B establishes a three-prong test for determining whether the immunity it establishes applies. The person in possession of the controlled dangerous substance must be experiencing an "overdose"; the person must be in need of medical assistance; and the evidence of the controlled dangerous substance must have been obtained as a result of the overdose and the need for medical assistance. This statute does not define "overdose," and there is no jurisprudence interpreting this statute.
In determining whether the defendant experienced an overdose, the Jago court stated:
"Overdose" is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "too great a dose (as of a therapeutic agent); also: a lethal or toxic amount (as of a drug)." "Toxic," is uniformly defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and by other dictionaries and internet sources as poisonous, deadly, and capable of causing death or serious injury.
State v. Jago, 209 So.3d at 1082.
The fifth circuit further found in Jago that for the purpose of the immunity provided by LSA-R.S. 14:403.10(B):
an "overdose" must be of a lethal, toxic, or poisonous amount that is capable of causing death or serious injury, rather than one which is merely dangerous, "too great a dose," or causing a lower level of
consciousness. Illegal possession or use of any amount of a Controlled Dangerous Substance is, by its nature and by legal prohibition, dangerous and "too great a dose." Therefore, to define "overdose" merely as one which is dangerous or is "too great a dose" would lead to the absurd result of allowing any amount of a CDS to satisfy this prong of the test for immunity granted by La. R.S. 14:403.10 B.
State v. Jago, 209 So.3d at 1083.
In a per curium opinion, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application seeking review of the fifth circuit's ruling, and rejected the fifth circuit's definition of an overdose being a "lethal, toxic, or poisonous amount that is capable of causing death or serious injury." See State v. JaRo, 2016-346 (La.App. 5th Cir. 12/28/16), 209 So.3d 1078, 1083, writ denied, 2017-0183 (La. 11/17/17), 228 So.3d 1218 (per curiam). See also State v. Rowe, 2021-0626 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/30/21), ___So. 3d___, 2021 WL 6333295, at *5. The Supreme Court, however, did not provide any concrete definition of what constitutes an overdose under LSA-R.S. 14:403.10(B).
Recently, in Rowe, this court affirmed a trial court's determination that an "overdose" is a medical and factual term that requires a witness with a medical background (or a medical expert) to testify as to the medical factors involved in diagnosing whether there has been an overdose. State v. Rowe, ___So. 3d at___, 2021 WL 6333295 at *5. We noted that at a trial on the merits, after such a witness testified, the factfinder would need to first accept the testimony of that witness and then determine, under the facts of the case, whether the defendant had experienced a drug-related overdose. State v. Rowe, ___So. 3d at___, 2021 WL 6333295 at *5.
At the motion-to-quash hearing herein, defense counsel argued that the defendant was experiencing an overdose and was in need of medical attention. One of the firefighters appeared briefly in St. Tammany Parish Officer Ben Sadowski's body camera video and told the officer the defendant's pupils were
pinpoint size, then appeared to say "I think he gonna be an O.D." The firefighter then said, "He's a nod out, look at that ...." The State maintained that the defendant did not overdose, and he was not in need of medical assistance.
In granting the motion to quash, the trial court found in pertinent part:
On January 25, 2021, St. Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office deputies were dispatched to investigate a person who was slumped over the wheel of his truck near La. Hwy 25 in Folsom. They were dispatched in response to a 911 call reporting a "male subject slumped over in the driver seat" of a vehicle in an alley. The caller reported no further details.
Deputy Brandon Crain and Deputy Ben Sadowski arrived on the scene at around the same time. Deputy Crain was the first to make contact with the defendant, Jeffrey [sic] Baham. Dy. Crain found Mr. Baham asleep in the driver's seat, with the doors and windows shut. Dy. Crain knocked on the window and shone his flashlight on Mr. Baham's face from outside the driver's door in attempt to wake him up. At the same time Dy. Sadowski was knocking on the passenger door window and shining his flashlight on Mr. Baham's face, also attempting to awaken Mr. Baham. After some time, Mr. Baham eventually woke up. Mr. Baham then informed the deputies that he had worked all day and was tired.
La. R.S. 14:403.10...
To continue reading
Request your trial