State v. DurrState v. Durr
The defendant Durr was convicted of one count of aggravated kidnapping,
The confederate, Dupre, was separately tried and convicted of aggravated kidnapping on both counts. We have recently affirmed his conviction. State v. Dupre,
The principal contention raised on the present defendant’s appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling the accused’s motion to quash the indictment.
We find no merit to this contention:
(a) Insofar as the defendant argues that the short-form indictment does not adequately inform him of the charge against him, we have repeatedly rejected this contention. See State v. Clark,
(b) Insofar as the defendant argues that the joinder in a single indictment of unrelated crimes is unduly prejudicial and deprives him of the presumption of innocence accorded him by our constitution (La.Const. of 1974, Art. 1, Section 16), we have held that — when two separate offenses are joined in a single indictment, as permitted under limited circumstances by La.C.Cr.P. art. 493 (1975) — they must nevertheless be severed for trial upon request of the defendant, La.C.Cr.P. art. 495.1, if evidence of the separate offenses would not be admissible in the trial of each. State v. Carter,
We therefore reject the defendant’s contention that the indictment should be quashed for the reasons argued.
Other particulars of the defendant’s argument and other assignments by him are more fully discussed in an appendix to this opinion, which will not be published but which will remain part of the public records of this court. The discussion concerns non-
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
AFFIRMED.