
    STATE of Louisiana v. Leo BANNING.
    No. 88-KK-2627.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 1988.
    DIXON, C.J., concurs in the order. Only if the bill of particulars is incomplete is it necessary to permit an evidentiary hearing on the motion to quash (which is the proper vehicle to determine whether the crime alleged has actually been committed).
   PER CURIAM.

Granted in part. The defense is entitled to a complete answer to No. 33 of its bill of particulars and to reurge its motion to quash prior to trial on the basis of the facts in that answer (or facts stipulated by the prosecutor). State v. Anthony, 427 So.2d 1155 (La.1983). Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district court, and the district attorney is ordered to provide a complete answer to No. 33 of the bill of particulars to defendant within twenty-four hours. The trial court is ordered to reconsider the motion to quash in the light of the prosecutor’s answer and of State v. Williams, 480 So.2d 721 (La.1985). Otherwise, the application is denied.  