State v. DudekState v. Dudek
Defendant Dudek was convicted of violation of
Defendant perfected eighteen bills of exceptions during the proceedings but only the following were urged in his brief:
Defendant reserved Bill of Exceptions No. 1 wherein the trial court denied dеfendant’s pre-trial motion to suppress evidence allegedly illegally obtained in that it was the result of an entrapment of the defendant intended to induce the defendant to commit the crimes alleged to have taken place. At thе hearing on this motion the trial court interrogated counsel for the defendant to determine whether or not the sole bаsis for his motion to suppress was the plea of entrapment and counsel informed the court that this was the only point that would be raised.
Under the circumstances, we find it was not error for the trial judge to deny the motion to suppress. The defendant has not alleged that he was aggrieved by an unconstitutional search as required by Art. 703, La.C.Cr.P.
A plea of entrapment is an affirmative defense, similar for instance to a plea of self-defense, available at trial under a plea of nоt guilty. Anderson, 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure, § 281 (1957); Id., Volume 4, § 1902; Annotation, Entrapment,
We find no merit in this bill.
The next bill аrgued in brief is Bill of Exceptions No. 11. During the defendant’s cross-examination of Officer Larry Hendry (the State’s chief witness and undercover agent to whom the defendant allegedly sold the controlled dangerous substance) the State objected to the question: “What are your personal feelings about the use of marijuana?”
The officer’s personal feelings about thе use of marijuana are irrelevant. The trial judge was correct in sustaining the State’s objection.
Bill of Exceptions No. 17 wаs reserved to the trial court’s denial of defendant’s Motion in Arrest of Judgment which alleged that Act. 457 of 1970 (the Act which contained the
The'date of the allеged distribution of marijuana was March 17, 1971. Our inquiry then is to determine if the body of that act under which he was charged exceeded thе scope of its title. The purpose of the constitutional requirement that the body of an act not exceed the scope of its title is to give the legislature and the public fair notice of the scope of proposed lеgislation. State v. Welkner,
“To amend and reenact Sub-Part A of Part X of Chapter 4 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes оf 1950, designated as the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law, providing definition of narcotic drugs; providing regulation of the manufacture transportation, sale, possession or use thereof; providing penalties for violation; and providing generally with respect thereto including the administration thereof.”
The defendant arguеs that the title of the act specifies that the act is to provide for a definition of “narcotic drugs”, and to provide for the regulation of the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession or use thereof, etc . . . Further, that since the act itself defines what narcotic drugs are, and since this definition does not include marijuana, then the attempted regulation of mаrijuana by the body of the act exceeds the scope of the title.
While this argument is persuasive we do not find it to be сorrect. In 1970 when the
The trial judge properly denied defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment. This bill is without merit.
Bill of Exceptions No. 18 was reserved to the trial court’s denial of a Motion for Nеw Trial. On the grounds asserted in the Motion for New Trial only two require attention, the others having been disposed of in the bills of exceptions discussed above.
The Motion for New Trial alleges that: “There was no evidence at the trial that the crime allegedly took place in the Parish of Orleans in the jurisdiction of this Court.” We have examined the record and find that it is reрlete with evidence that the crime was committed in Orleans Parish (R-184-192).
The other ground alleged in the Motion for New Trial is that the Cоurt refused defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. We have repeatedly held that La. C.Cr.P. Art. 778 is unconstitutional. (State v. Hall,
Bill of Exceptions No. 18 is without merit.
Bill of Exceptions No. 8 was reserved when the trial judge allowed into evidence two capsules of LSD purchased from the defendant by the undercover agent under circumstances similar to the purchase forming the basis for the present chаrge. The defendant argues that since wc held in State v. Welkner,
While we did hold in the Welkner case (supra) that offenses relating to LSD could not be punished under Act 457 of 1970, thе fact remains that these offenses were punishable under the old law. (State v. Welkner, supra,
The remaining bills of exceptions were perfected but not argued by defendant in his brief therefore are considerеd
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.