STATE of Louisiana v. Robert HUIZAR
No. 57392
Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 17, 1976
332 So. 2d 449
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-apрellee.
SANDERS, Chief Justice.
The Orleans Parish Grand Jury indicted the defendant Robert Huizar, for second degree murder in violation of
The defendant complains that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for the production of certain material during the hearing on the Bill of Particulars and the Prayer for Oyer. The specific information sought and not granted was: (1) information about whether anyone other than the defendant or the victim had or used the gun at the time of the killing; (2) weapons that the State intended to introduce into evidence; (3) all physical evidence the State intended to introduce as well as information concerning the time and date when and the persons by whom and from whom it was taken; (4) medical rеports of examinations conducted by the coroner‘s office reflecting the mental condition of the victim; and (5) results of all scientific tests conducted.
The defendant makes only a broad argument that much of the information denied him was exculpatory and that under the decision of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), he was therefore entitled to it. He also argues that the information sought which does not fall within the perimeters of Brady should have been given to him to enable him to properly prepаre his defense. In support of this second argument he cites Azcona v. United States, 257 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1958).
In responding to the defendant‘s motion for a Bill of Particulars and his Prayer for Oyer, the State suppliеd the following information: the date, time of day, and location of the offense; the name and age
Insofar as the two requests seeking information about weapons are concerned, we note that the State offered no weapons into evidence at the trial. Additionally, the request for reports from the coroner‘s office was rendered moot when the State gave the dеfense a copy of the autopsy protocol; further, as the trial judge concluded, this information was available to the defense through the corоner‘s office, so there was no need to compel the State to disclose it. Under the jurisprudence, the defendant was not entitled to the other informаtion sought. The Azcona case cited by the defense, a federal prosecution, is inapposite because the discovery rules in the federal courts, considerably more liberal than those existing in Louisiana, are inapplicable to state courts. The Official Revision Comment to
Finally, the granting of information sought in a motion for a Bill of Particulars is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse, resulting in prejudice to an accused. See, e.g., State v. Nelson, La., 306 So.2d 745 (1975); State v. Vince, La., 305 So.2d 916 (1975). No adequate showing of an abuse of discretion or of prejudice to the defendant has been made in the instant case.
The assignment of error is without merit.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 2 AND 3
Defendant made these assignments of error in connection with a defense objection to the State‘s motion to declare one of the State witnesses a hostile witness, so that the State could impeach her. The witness was the wife of the murder victim and a sister of the defendant.
The relevant facts are these: The witness was with her husband at the time of the shooting. She testified at trial that she did not see who shot her husband or herself and did nоt see a gun anywhere. In response to a question by the district attorney, she stated that she did not recall making any statements to the police about having sеen who fired the shots. Immediately thereafter, the district attorney moved to have the witness declared hostile; the defense attorney objected on the ground that no proper foundation had been laid. Out of the presence of the jury, the district attorney questioned the witness about specific statements shе allegedly made the night of the shooting to various police officers, and she continued to deny any memory of having made the statements. The court overruled the objection
The defendant argues that, although the State‘s motion was denied, prejudice had already resulted because of the questions the district attorney had propounded to thе witness in the presence of the jury. However, a review of the transcript convinces us that the State never established during the course of the witness‘s testimony that she had in fact ever made any statements to the police, or that she had ever implicated her brother, the defendant, as the perpetratоr of the crime. We hold that the defendant suffered no prejudice from these general questions. Consequently, under
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 7 AND 8
In these two assignments of error the defendant сomplains of the trial judge‘s ruling that an inculpatory statement made to Officer Varnado by the defendant at the time of his arrest was voluntary and admissible in evidenсe. He relies upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Officer Varnado testified that while he was handcuffing the defendant, whom he knew personаlly, and informing him that he was under arrest, the defendant began mumbling a confession to him. Immediately thereafter, he advised the defendant of his rights and asked him to relate аgain what had happened. The defendant did so without coercion, threats, or inducements.
It is apparent from the officer‘s unrefuted testimony that he had nо time to inform the defendant of his rights because while he was in the process of doing so, the defendant, without being questioned, volunteered a confession. Spontaneous, volunteered statements given without coercion or custodial interrogation are not subject to exclusion because of non-comрliance with Miranda‘s prior-warning requirements. State v. Thomas, La., 310 So.2d 517 (1975); State v. Hall, 257 La. 253, 242 So.2d 239 (1970).
Under the circumstances shown, the assignments of error have no merit.
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.