State v. HendersonState v. Henderson
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Joseph Meyer, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-relator.
DENNIS, Justice.
The State does not contest defendant‘s right to secure the attendance of these witnesses at trial or to have the expenses of their appearance provided for him,
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 741-45 provide for obtaining witnesses from outside the State, but these articles do not say from which source the witness fees and travel expenses are to be paid. However, the legislative intent is clear that, with regard to indigent defendants, these provisions are to be read in pari materia with Articles 738 and 739 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 738 provides:
“At a trial or hearing, each defendant in a misdemeanor case shall be allowed to summon six witnesses at the expense of the parish, and in a felony case twelve witnesses. A defendant shall have the right of compulsory process for additional witnesses at his own expense.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 739 provides:
“If a defendant is indigent and unable to pay for witnesses desired by him in addition to those summoned at the expense of the parish, he shall make a sworn application to the court for the additional witnesses. The application must allege that the testimony is relevant and material and not cumulative and that the defendant cannot safely go to trial without it.
“The court shall make a private inquiry into the facts, and if satisfied that the defendant is entitled to the privilege, it shall render an order permitting the defendant to subpoena additional witnesses at the expense of the parish. If the application is denied, the court shall state the reasons for the denial in writing, which shall become part of the record.” (Emphasis supplied.)
If the court renders an order to obtain witnesses outside the state for an indigent defendant, these articles suggest that the expenses necessitated thereby shall be paid directly by the parish, and not from a criminal court fund or special account of the court, of which the parish may indirectly be the beneficiary. Furthermore,
Defendant argues, on the other hand, that these expenses should be paid from the special account of fines and forfeitures for defraying expenses of the criminal courts of Orleans Parish, in accordance with
“All fines and forfeitures imposed in criminal cases and prosecutions by the courts of Orleans Parish shall, upon collection, be paid to the district attorney of Orleans Parish who shall deposit same in a special account to be used in defraying the expenses of the criminal courts of the parish, extraditions and such other expenses pertaining to the operation of the criminal courts of Orleans Parish and the office of the district attorney of Orleans Parish as in his discretion may be necessary. Provided, that any surplus remaining in said special account or fund on December 31st of each and every year shall be distributed as follows: one-half to be retained by the district attorney of Orleans Parish, to be used as hereinabove set forth, and the other half to be remitted to the city of New Orleans. No money shall be paid out of this fund except upon motion by the district attorney of Orleans Parish and approval by a judge of the criminal district court of Orleans Parish. A copy of said motion must be served on the budget officer of the city of New Orleans twenty-four hours prior to the approval thereof by the judge. Said fund shall be annually audited by the director of finance of the city of New Orleans.”
In essence, this statute provides that payments out of the special account for defraying expenses of the criminal court shall be made upon approval of the district attorney and a judge of the Criminal District Court of Orleans Parish. The traveling expenses of out-of-state witnesses for indigent defendants logically fall within the class of expenses which the legislature intended may be paid with fines and forfeitures. Therefore, the defendant contends that neither the district attorney nor the court may arbitrarily withhold approval of these expenditures from the account.
We agree with defendant that neither agency of government may arbitrarily refuse to approve a proper expenditure from the special account. However, we do not understand the district attorney to claim untrammeled discretion over payments from the account. He merely urges that because the legislature has expressly provided for the payment of witnesses from another source, viz., the city of New Orleans,
Accordingly, the trial court‘s order is amended to provide that the City of New Orleans must bear the costs of lodging, transportation and meals for defendant‘s witnesses.
AMENDED AND, AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED.
NOTES
Notes
Notes
The statute provides in its entirety:
“A. All fines and forfeitures imposed by district courts and district attorneys conviction fees in criminal cases and prosecutions, upon collection by the sheriff or executive officer of the court, shall be paid into the treasury of the parish in which the court is situated and deposited in a special `Criminal Court Fund’ account, which, on motion by the district attorney and approval order of the district judge, may be used or paid out in defraying the expenses of the criminal courts of the parish as provided in
“B. Notwithstanding the provisions of
“C. One-half of any surplus remaining in said special account or fund on December 31st of each and every year shall be transferred to the parish general fund. No money shall be paid out of said special account except upon the order or warrant of the district judge and district attorney as above provided. Said fund shall be annually audited by the state supervisor of public funds or his deputies.” (Paragraph “D” is set forth above).