additionally concurs in the writ grant and remand to the Court of Appeal. The state’s opposition recites.that the defendant requisitioned certain “items for his own personal consumption ...” The bill of information charges the defendant with “theft of U.S. currency belonging to the Calcasieu Parish school system of the value of $984.62.” In order to invoke La.C.Cr.P. art. 572’s time limitation on prosecution, it will in my opinion be necessary to determine from the present record how, legally, this defendant charged with misappropriating $984.62 cash, was a person who was (by virtue of his employment) entrusted with or in control of that cash.

concurs in the order. The bill of information charged defendant with the “theft of U.S. currency belonging to the Calcasieu Parish School System, of the value of $984.62.” At the hearing on the motion to quash based on prescription, the state had the burden of proving the exception in La.C.Cr.P. Article 573(1) — that the misappropriated “money or thing of value” had been under defendant’s control by virtue of his employment. Perhaps the explanation lies in the answers to the bill of particulars which is not included in the application, but the bare denial of the application appears erroneous. I therefore concur.

In Re: Weldon Aucoin applying for Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus to the Third Circuit, Court of Appeal, No. K84-84, from the 14th Judicial District Court, No. 10621-83. Parish of Calcasieu.

Granted and remanded to the Court of Appeal for briefing, argument and opinion.