*1 progress compelled Time have Gulf enlarge expand
Stаtes to its facilities beyond original an extent far con-
templation the agreement question.
Although it right once had the to erect
“H-Frames”, that right has been lost
nonusage. If Gulf States would utilize
plaintiffs’ property expansion pro- its
gram it pay let for it.
I respectfully dissent.
STATE of Louisiana
Edward Francis CROOK.
No. 49415.
March
Rehearing May 5, Denied *2 Mouledoux, Orleans,
George New E. appellant. Gen., Gremillion, Atty. Wil- P. F.
Jack Gen., Schuler, Atty. Gar- liam P. Asst. Jim Korns, rison, Atty., trial, Dist. Louise witnesses, Asst. Dist. a list all a transcript Atty., appellee. Jury Grand proceedings, certain in- concerning arrest,
formation laboratory SANDERS, reports, scene, photographs of the and all Justice. tangible demonstrative or evidence to be Jury Parish Orleans Grand indicted used at the trial. aggravated rape, Edward Francis Crook for by as defined 14:42. The de- LSA-R.S. The State answered the bill particu- pleaded guilty guilty fendant not and not lars prayer oyer. specified insanity. trial, reason After date, time, exact place offense, charged. returned a verdict of prosecution advised the para- was under judgе trial then sentenced the defend- graphs (1) 14:42, and (2) of LSA-R.S. ant to death electrocution. The defend- it had no written confessions or statements appealed, relying ant upon eight bills of the defendant. The State declined to exceptions reserved in trial court. furnish requested, other items and the (cid:127) 3, 1967, night On the of October an 18- sustained the position. State’s year-old girl returning from her The hоme defendant then reserved Bills of Ex- *3 employment department ceptions in New Orleans 1Nos. and 2. As stop,
store. she walked from the bus adequate State’s answer was pointed a white inman his mid-thirties what assure the defendant a full understanding appeared her, gun money, to be a at took her of the charge and of the law under which and forced into her his car. He then drove prоsecuted. being brutally a deserted raped location and following night, ap- her. On the police The defendant is entitled to the prehended Edward Francis Crook for the production video-taped of written or con crime. Hall, 425, fessions. State v. 253 218 So. La. BILLS OF 1 2 EXCEPTIONS and NOS. 320; Dorsey, 2d State 928, v. 207 La. 22 case, however, So.2d 273. In the
The defendant filed a motion a bill for the State had no such confеssion. particulars prayer oyer seeking and pre-trial inspection “a discovery” and right The defendant had no to re date, time, place the exact and of the quire production of other items of evi the specific paragraphs of 14:42 LSA-R.S. dence. We have often held that a defend tried, under which he was to be written con- fessions, prosecution right ant a сriminal statements, oral confessions no detailed list all discovery. evidence to at pre-trial Hunter, be used of full v. State 968
967 public Pailet, against of the protection 295, 273; State v. 195 So.2d 250 La. ravages of crime.” 483, 165 So.2d 246 La. judge ruling correct. Hunter, supra, we stated: v.
In State vanguard of the in the “Louisiana was 3 BILL OF NO. EXCEPTIONS right a defendant granting states upon the After the trial had ruled inspect his written confession particulars prayer for a bill of motion Dorsey, supra; State trial. See State v. oyer, the defendant filed motion 203, Tune, and 74 A.2d v. 13 98 N.J. indictment, primarily quash on two However, 940, we Harv.L.Rev. denial grounds: (1) that the trial court’s this steadfastly have refused to broaden the enumerated his motions to secure pre-trial discovery of holding full into prevented items of State’s criminal evidence in items of varied adequately preparing his defense him from 950, Johnson, La. See 249 cases. State repre- deprived him of effective and state (oral 192 confession So.2d 135 counsel, in violation of sentation Dickson, ; witnesses) ments of State v. Fourth, Fifth, and Amendments of Sixth 500, (police motion 180 403 248 La. So.2d Constitution; (2) United States criminal picture act); aggravated rape penalty the death Pailet, 483, La. 294 246 165 So.2d State v. and unusual cruel under LSA-R.S. 14:42 Bickham, recordings); (wire-tap State v. Eighth by the punishment prohibited 1094, (defendant’s 239 La. Constitu- Amendment United States ; Lea, La. statements) State v. 228 oral tion. ; confession) (oral So.2d State, observed, furnished we have Shourds, 224 La. So.2d State required the defendant all information ; Simpson, 216 State v. (documents) adequate to This information was law. produced (evidеnce La. 43 So.2d satisfy all consti- prepare the defense and Vallery, grand jury hearing); requirements. tutional (statement of So.2d also attacks quash The motion *4 ; witness) v. Mat
prosecuting
and State
sentence for
constitutionality
the death
284,
(police re
tio, 212 La.
State,
rape.
the mode
aggravated
In this
*
* *
port) .
penalty is elec-
administering the death
trocution.
holding
has been
of thе Court
“The
related
vital considerations
twenty
dictated
a death
states authorize
About
rape.
Rudolph v. Ala-
procedure and
sentence for
See
in criminal
balance
fair
bama,
889,
155,
upheld.
sistently
Kemmler,
U.S.
84 S.Ct.
11 L.Ed.
re
In
136 U.S.
(Footnote
2d
Legis
436,
930,
1). The Louisiana
519;
10 S.Ct.
34 L.Ed.
State
lature has
penalty
Resweber,
authorized
death
Louisiana
for
rel.
ex
Francis v.
aggravated
459,
rape.
374,
LSA-R.S.
The
14:42.
U.S.
S.Ct.
State
L.Ed.
however,
jury,
may
qualified
Burdette,
ver
return
135 W.Va.
the conscience of civilized men. BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NO. 4
Electrocution is a common method administering penalty. the death Intro Bill defendant reserved of Ex improvement duced as an ceptions over older and objection 4 when his No. execution, less humane methods of such as attorney’s question district was overruled hanging, constitutionality its has been con- during the voir dire of certain examination *5 n
972 my objectiоn ruling the the objec- question and jurors. The
prospective Exceptions Court.” the Bill of in tion set forth are follows: Witherspoon relies Illi Defendant on nois, 1770, 20 L.Ed. U.S. 88 S.Ct. time I At this MR. MURRAY: “BY 2d decided the United Su States you any ask if proper it’s think There, preme after Court the trial. any ob- conscientious gentlemen have improper it held exclude Court the inflic- against the jections scruples or prosрective jurors for cause who voiced facts capital if the punishment, tion only general objections, scruples, against it ? the case warrant the penalty. nothing the death find in please, your If Honor “BY MR. KOCH: the improper that would render decision Murray question object to Mr. I Attorney’s question concerning District though jury. I posed Even capital punishment. juror’s objections to mе, against I think know law is Rather, thrust is toward decision someday might it be overruled. examination of requiring a more careful a blue tends to let the State select capi prospective juror’s attitude toward panel. ribbbon I don’t think that punishment. stated: tal The Court question should be The State asked. is a us narrow one. “The before issue be able and defense should never prose- right of thе not involve the It does question. my that I ask make motion pro- for cause challenge those cution to question he for mistrial based on the that their reser- spective jurors who state asked. would capital punishment about vations making impartial prevent them from an objection “BY THE COURT: Nor guilt. decision as to defendant’s the motion for mistrial overruled and aof it assertion doеs involve State’s is denied. capital right in a exclude from ruling they “BY MR. KOCH: To which say that could never case those who penalty or impose the death respectfully I vote to Court reserve bill they its to consider would even refuse part exceptions, making thereof the them.” imposition in the case pertinent allowing the District article Attorney question, to ask Hence, questiоn District posed attorney, Attorney proper.1 question by the asked district Illinois, Witherspoon fails raise the announced The hill of propriety subsequent L.Ed.2d 776. S.Ct. U.S. exclusion jurors for cause under the test several 5 and 6 Bill BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NOS. ant submitted the Exceptions' with- argument. out Exceptions Bill Defendant reserved objection overruling 5 to
No.
of his
to We find
no merit
it.
Attorney’s
correctly
the District
assertion
They
exсluded the documents.
*6
opening
statement to
that in order were offered without verification. With-
intent,
prove system,
proper foundation,
knowl-
aout
the documents are
edge
part,
on defendant’s
intro-
Danna,
would
inadmissible. See State v.
170 La.
duce
that
evidence to show
defendant Crook
name, under Bill similar circumstances. of Defendant Exceptions reserved Bill Exceptions of 6 was when the No. reserved overruling No. of rape actually a motion a evidence of the in- other new trial and judg- a motion in arrest of troduced. ment. reurge The motions the matters con- bills with These were submitted previous sidered in bills argument. out find no merit them. allege that contrary verdict -to the offenses, rape, In sexual such lаw the evidence. similar recent acts the defendant bill, This argument, submitted wtihout admissible for corroboration and show presents nothing further for review. disposition the intent and licentious of de 15:445, 15:446; State fendant. LSA-R.S. assigned, For reasons conviction Cupit, 189 La. 179 So. and sentence are affirmed. McCollough, 90 So. BARHAM, (dissenting). offense shown was committed five Justice days charged earlier than the onе under charged ag- The defendant was with the Hence, closely similar it is circumstances. gravated rape young woman New related time and method Orleans on October 1967. The district offense. attorney in opening statement said that prove he intended to offer evidence to
BILL
NO. '7
OF EXCEPTIONS
accused,
days
or four
this
three
before
Defendant
rape charged,
raped
young
reserved this Bill of
had
another
Exceptions
the trial
when
excluded
under
in an-
woman
similar circumstances
reports
city.
from evidence two
from
the court
mental
section
After
other
hospitals
objection,
in other states and defendant’s
overruled
defendant’s
Exception
Bureau of Identification Record. Defend-
Bill
5 was re-
which
No.
attorney
tinguishable
there
defendant was
served,
described
the district
charged
requiring specific
a crime
The State
offer.
proof
he would
which
15:445,
(See
quoted
intent.
infra.)
R.S.
had been
young
who
later called the
woman
days
raped
the offense
several
on,
case relied
State Mc-
trial. This
on
defendant was
which the
Collough,
distinguisha-
is also unsound but
occurrence,
in detail the
witness described
There,
ble
case
hand.
from
where
the defend-
rape, and
identified
forcible
charged
with carnal
defendant was
ob-
The defendant
ant as the offender.
erroneously
knowledge,
the court
stated
Bill
jected
testimony and reserved
this
proof
prior
offenses was admissible
Exception
No.
purpose
establishing intent and
for the
motive,
required of that
which were not
no
these
majority has
merit
found
prior
crime. The
is that
distinction
in connection
exception
bills
reserved
sexual acts with
an
offenses were other
separate
offense on
proof
with the
another, per
girl,
young prosecutrix.
upon
same
earlier date committed
“ * * *
offenses,
son, stating:
In sexual
provides: “If a statute
15:444
R.S.
recent
evidence of similar
such as
act,
particular
no
it a
made
crimе to do
cor
is admissible for
acts of
required than
proof of intent
further
*7
li
the intent and
roboration and to show
voluntarily
act
did the
that
accused
”
* * *
defendant.
disposition
centious
of
* *
“In order
15:445 states:
R.S.
has been
(Emphasis
and elsewhere
here
intent,
is admissible of
evidence
to show
support
conclusion
supplied.)
In
of this
acts,
charged
independent
act
of the
similar
Cupit, 189
majority has
cited State v.
indictment,
though
in the
crime
837, and State v. McCol
179
La.
So.
fact,
be
question
it need not
intent is
of
lough, 149 La.
statutory law relevant to the 433; issue before Bates, So. State v. 46 La.Ann. the court. So. Johnson, La.Ann. It is generally accepted only not rule The defendant in the instant is case Louisiana1 but in jurisdictions other charged rape. with aggravated Rape is proof of other is offenses not admissible in act of sexual intercourse with a female the trial aof defendant. Wharton’s (other than the the offender) wife of com- Criminal (12th Evidence ed. 1955); § mitted without her lawful consent. R.S. 2 Marr’s Jurisprudence Criminal (2nd Aggravated rape § 14:41. is committed when ed. In 1923). sexual 22A is intercourse deemed be Law Criminal § C.J.S. without lawful because consent the female 683 it p. is at stated 743: “Notwithstanding prevented resisted to the utmost or from the exceptions, existence these numerous resisting by great threats of immediate the general rule precluding admission of bodily harm. Intent R.S. 14:42. and evidence should strict- offenses knozvledge part form no of the crime with ly enforced, in all applicable, cases where which charged, this accused there- because prejudicial of the effect and in- fore crime falls within 15:444. R.S. justice evidence, of such and should not statutes, our Under extrane- departed be except from under conditions crimes is ous to be admitted show clearly which justify departure. So, such a intent and knozvledge, such evidence exceptions these carefully should be limit- directly materially upon must then bear ed, and scope their number and not in- guilt issue innocence of the de- and, creased, if it is doubtful whether evi- fendant for the crime which he any dence of other offenses falls within charged. Obviously statutory law does our rule, it should be ex- proof not authorize the of anothеr crime cluded.” is further in 22A observed purpose “corroboration”, for the or of 691(37) (d) p. Criminal Law § prior aggravated rape person of another to C.J.S. evidence, general, 891: “In at least where disposition defend- show “licentious it recog- ant”. does fall not within one exceptions, nized is not sim- admissible of *8 general theory the which reflect Cases by ilar sexual or other оffenses committed admissibility of regard court in our prose- persons accused on other than the other than the evidence of offenses one as, Rives, cutrix, example, rapes charged or are 193 La. other Gerald, recognized, general rule see State For a in which the is recent ease 199 So.2d interpretation is attempts, in- is that a man entitled to or statutоry rapes, assaults or ”*** face, expected charge notice he is to of the decent liberties. misleading proof is of other offenses Rives, supra, quoting said in State may inflamma- prejudicial and even be and on and Wharton Evidence from Rice on jury’s majority has tory in the mind. The Evidence: Criminal the prejudicial effect of intro- conceded the " * * * species of dangerous is a ‘It by prior the offense duction of evidence evidence, requires de- it not because and stating that it would “corroborate” explain than other acts to meet fendant and disposition defend- the “licentious show which charged against him and for those disposition” this ant”. “licentious The trial, may it lead but also because he is on jury placed accused cаnnot be principle that great jury violate except upon good char- as an attack crime party of one is not to be convicted him, placed it is acter when issue ** by proof is of another.’ that he by the since this evidence was introduced defendant that the indictment all 'The chief, defendant’s character State prepared to answer. expеcted to come allow not at does not issue. law Therefore, another the introduction of proof prior subsequent offenses or or take is calculated to extraneous crime evi- introduced in even of convictions be him mani- by surprise, and do purpose “corroborating” dence for creating prejudice injustice by fest proof guilt the defendant of * * * It general character. agaAhst his accused. he stands the offense of which convictions, upon particu- lead would knowledge is an ele- intent nor Neither made, proof acts of other charge lar which the defend- of the crime with ment it, uniting way and to no connected charged. The evidence of ant was produce offenses to evidence of several conviction crime because or «* “ has not has, n * * [*] committed * & for a been ‘A man he is punished.’ single one.’ cannot be convicted bad man crimes ” generally which prior rape could have been vict for the offense bearing evidence fense charged. The return a harsh upon was to had no predispose served in guilt or innocence connection with charged only purpose which verdict. this case or jury inflame It had no the of- by the con- presenta- general this offense. defendant of readily apparent had the effect strictly tion of this adhered to principle must :be charge another trying the defendant carefully scrutinized. indictment and without notice supports this strict without general policy 'which *9 opportunity to secure pre- witnesses and
pare a prejudicial. defense. It was already
We have ex- overextended the
ception general our rule. Some of
jurisprudence explicit, disregarded 15:444,
unambiguous language of R.S. 15:- excepts language and 15:446. That gen-
evidence offenses from the
eral rule when “knowl-
edge part or intent forms an essential law, inquiry”. I submit that this is the law,
the correct the rational law.
majority holding already will stretch
n overextended jurisprudential exception. respectfully
I dissent.
STATE of Louisiana
Raymond HENDERSON.
No. 49462.
March
Rehearing 5,May Denied Pitts, Bolen,
Stafford & A. Jr., James Alexandria, defendant-appellant.