State v. DobsonState v. Dobson
Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine, a violation of
While on patrol in a marked pоlice car in an area of New Orleans associated with numerous complaints of drug-trafficking, two officers came upon a car parked in the middle of the street. Seeing the defendant leaning inside the car аnd believing that he was involved in a drug transaction the officers stopped their car and approached the defendant. He discarded a matchbox which the officers retrieved. It contained white powder lаter found to be cocaine.
A review of the record for errors patent reveals none.
By his only assignment of error defendant contends that the trial court‘s definition of “reasonable doubt” included in the charge to the jury was erroneous entitling him to a new trial.
In Cage v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), the United States Supremе Court found that the jury charge defining reasonable doubt which used the phrases “grave uncertainty,” “actual substantial doubt“, and “moral certainty” could have led a reasonable juror to interpret the instruction “to allow a finding of guilt based on a degree of proof below that required by the due рrocess clause.” The Court reversed the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court affirming the defendant‘s conviction and sentence.
The jury charge in the instant case contains language on reasonable doubt which is almost identical to that which was condemned in Cage. Thus, defendant argues that he is entitled to a reversal of his conviction and a new trial. However, in the рresent case, unlike Cage, no objection was made at trial to the chаrge. So the question is whether the lack of a contemporaneous objection to the charge precludes its review on appеal.
A party mаy not assign as error the giving or failure to give a jury charge or any portion thereof unless an objection thereto is made before the jury retires or within such time as the court may reasonably cure the alleged error.
Consistent with these statutes Louisiana appellate courts have rеfused to consider arguments on jury charges where no contemporаneous objections were made. State v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 428 (La.1982); State v. Mart, 419 So.2d 1216 (La.1982); State v. Henry, 551 So.2d 9 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989); State v. Barbee, 543 So.2d 530 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989).
Defendant argues that the court shоuld apply the “plain error” doctrine to this case allowing appellate review of the jury charge notwithstanding the absence of a contemporaneous objection. Louisiana rules of criminal procedure do not contain a provision such as
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.