State v. HarrisState v. Harris
Defendant, Coby Harris, while serving a 40 year sentence fоr second degree murder at Angola, was charged with and convicted of simple escape, a violation of
The state‘s case against Harris centered upon testimony given by Louisiana State Penitentiary Corrections Officers working at Angola. L. B. Johnston and Richard Mayeaux, two of the officers who were оn duty at the time of defendant‘s escape, established during the state‘s case in chief that Harris was one of 155 inmates assigned to work in the penitentiary cotton fields. The prisoners were transported to the fields eаrly in the morning and each inmate was assigned to work a separate row of cotton. When roll call was taken later that morning, Harris did not respond when his name was called. A head count of the inmates present rеvealed that one prisoner was missing. Officer Mayeaux, in attempting to locate defendant, proceeded down the row of cotton to which Harris had been assigned. All that he discovered was the absent defеndant‘s empty cotton sack.
Eight days later, J. S. Carter, an off-duty corrections officer, spotted an individual wearing what appeared to be a prison-issue rain slicker standing beside a tree outside the penitentiary gates. Officer Carter testified that this individual was positioned in a manner that would preclude detection by approaching vehicles. The off-duty officer stopped his vehicle and turned around to investigate this person‘s presence. When Carter returned to where he observed the
Defendant testified that he remembered being brought to the cotton field, but once there he got lost. According to defendant, he did not even know whether he was on penitеntiary grounds during the time he was missing. Though Harris acknowledged that he was the individual observed by Officer Carter outside the prison gates, he stated that he was weak and dizzy and did not know where he was at the time. Defendant urged at trial that hе was relieved when he was apprehended by prison officials.
On rebuttal, the state recalled L. B. Johnston, who testified as to the number of guards on duty the day defendant escaped and the method employed in guarding thе cotton field. He also testified that certain cotton stalks had been broken and removed and that tracks leading from the stalks had been intentionally “scratched out.” This statement tended to support the state‘s сlaim that Harris purposely evaded prison guards in order to complete his escape. The jury found defendant guilty of simple escape and he was sentenced by the trial judge to serve 4½ years at hard labor.
Assignment of Error Number 1
By this аssignment of error, defendant urges that the trial judge erred in his denial of defendant‘s motion for a new trial. To prove defendant‘s guilt, the state was required to show that Harris’ absence was an “intentional departure” from a рlace where he was legally confined.1 In State v. Ligget, 363 So.2d 1184 (La.1978), this Court held that simple escape is a general intent crime. General intent is present when the circumstances indicate that the offender, in the ordinary course of human experience, must have averted to the proscribed criminal consequences as reasonably certain to result from his act or failure to act.
Initially, we note that, though defense counsel objected to Officer Johnston‘s rebuttal testimony becausе of hearsay and leading questions, no contemporaneous objection was made as to the substance of this witness’ testimony. Thus, the provisions of
The grounds of counsel‘s objections must be sufficiently brought to the attention of the trial judge to allow him the oрportunity to make the proper ruling and correct any claimed prejudice to the accused. State v. Davis, 357 So.2d 1125 (La. 1978). Accordingly, a new ground for objection cannot be presented for the first time on appeal. State v. Davis, supra; State v. Monroe, 397 So.2d 1258 (La.1981); State v. Bodley, 394 So.2d 584 (La.1981).
We are also of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the state during its case in chief was of sufficient character to establish an intentional escape. The corrections officers on duty at the timе of Harris’ escape testified that there were a large number of persons in the general area where defendant claims he got “lost.” Defendant departed from his work detail without
Further, testimony presеnted by the state concerning the method of defendant‘s escape was designed to discredit defendant‘s claim that he was lost. Thus, it was properly admitted by the trial court on rebuttal. Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.
Assignment of Error Number 2
By this assignment of error, defendant contends that his sentence is excessive and that the trial judge failed to properly consider and articulate the sentencing guidelines of
Although this brief statement by the trial judge, standing alone, did not fulfill the requisites of
Harris’ incarceration at Angola resulted from his guilty plea to second degree murder. Originally, defendant was charged with first degree murder and armed robbery. The armed robbery charge was dropped. Besides the murder conviction, Harris’ criminal record also includes chargеs of two counts of armed robbery.
Further, defendant‘s long history of disciplinary action while serving his 40 year murder sentence at Angola clearly supported the sentence imposed in the instant case. At the time the 4½ year sentence was imposed, Harris had been subjected to disciplinary action on 31 separate occasions while at Angola.2 These disciplinary measures were the result of defendant‘s violation of certain prison rules, such as possession of contraband (alcohol, marijuana and a knife), gambling activities, disrespect and defiance to prison officials, disorderly conduct, aggravated work offenses and simple escape.3 Other actions taken against Harris by prison officials dealt with such incidents as defendant‘s stabbing a fellow inmate, his presence in unauthorized areas and defendant‘s unsanitary practices, including defecating on the floor of his prison cell.
Defendant‘s criminal and prison records show his total lack of respect and continued defiance against authority, as well as his tendency to engage in violent cоnduct. These records adequately support the conclusion that Harris is in need of a custodial environment and that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of his crime.
Harris’ prior conduct strongly indicates that, in the absence of a stringent sentence,
We conclude that, because there was no manifest abuse of discretion by the trial judge in imposing sentence, dеfendant‘s sentence should not be set aside as excessive.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of Coby Harris are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
A. Simple escape is:
(1) The intentional departure, under circumstances wherein human life is not endangеred, or a person imprisoned, committed, or detained, from a place where such person is legally confined or from a designated area of a place where such person is legally confinеd or from the lawful custody of any law enforcement officer or officer of the Department of Corrections;...