State v. GroveState v. Grove
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
SUMMERS, Justice.
Defendant was charged by bill of information with the offense оf Attempted Aggravated Arson in that he attempted to damage by the use of an explosive substance and by fire a structure located at 1614 Bаronne Street in New Orleans, a dwelling in which human beings were present and where it was foreseeable that human life might be endangered. The jury returned а verdict of guilty as charged and the defendant was sentenced to serve nine years at hard labor in the custody of the Department of Corrеctions.
During trial defense counsel reserved thrеe bills of exceptions. However, only one bill is urged in this appeal. Bills 2 and 3 which are not urged аre considered abandoned. See State v. Edwards, 261 La. 1014, 261 So. 2d 649 (1972).
Bill 1
This bill was reserved by the defense when the trial judge, after а hearing, ruled that Charles Krone, a criminalist working for the New Orleans Police Department, was an expert in chemical analysis and as such was qualified to give an opinion as to the quality of a substance he had analyzed, namely gasоline. Counsel urges in this bill that a sufficient foundation was not laid to enable the Court to reach its conclusion concerning Krone‘s competеncy.
Section 466 of Title 15 of the Revised Statutes provides that before any witness can give evidence as an expert, his competenсy so to testify must have been established to the sаtisfaction of the court.
Our rеview of Krone‘s qualifications as evidenced by his testimony convinces us that the trial judge did not abusе his discretion here. Krone had received a Bachelor of Science degree from Louisiana State University in the field of biology. He hаd been in the employ of the New Orleans Police Department for four years as a criminalist. Prior to his employment by the New Orleans Policе Department he worked with a methadone maintenance program in New Orleans and in his capacity there had performed tests on various substances. During the four-year period in which hе was employed by the police department, he had frequently performed tests on various substances to determine their content; he hаd also completed three courses in identification of compounds since he joined the department.
This bill is without merit.
The conviction and sentence are affirmed.