State v. JosephState v. Joseph
Lead Opinion
Dalton Joseph was found guilty of violating
Two yоung males entered the All American Jeans store on Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Jefferson Parish. A sales clerk, Raimee Mаrmillion, offered assistance and the men proceeded to try on various clothes. One of the men then went to the countеr with some clothes while the other roamed about the store. Marmillion asked the man at the counter if the purchase would bе cash or charge and he responded by pointing a gun at the cashier, Brenda Williams, and demanded “all the money you have”. Thе other man approached with more merchandise which he stuffed into a store bag. The cashier and saleslady were tоld to go into the back room and the robbers fled.
The cashier could not describe the two men еxcept for their wearing apparel and dark complexion. She was not asked to view any photographs and no аttempt was made to have her identify the defendant in court. The saleslady, an artist, said she viewed both men for about fifteen minutes рrior to the robbery and drew sketches of the robbers’ faces on the night of the incident. She positively identified each of the men in a photographic lineup, picking out this defendant from a set of five black and white pictures, and his companion from a set of five color snapshots.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
At the defendant’s request a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum had been issued to the Jefferson Parish Sheriff to рroduce Eddie Landry, the defendant’s alleged partner, who was in custody. When defense counsel called Landry to testify the Statе warned that Landry’s attorney should be present because of his pending robbery charge. Defense counsel then suggested that thе court advise Landry that he would not have to testify and stated he only wanted to ask two questions: first, why Landry shaved off his goatee and combed his hair differently; second, if a charge was pending against him for robbery of the All American Jeans store. Defense counsеl stated his purpose was to have the jury view Landry in order to physically compare him with the defendant in an effort to establish misidеntification because of their alleged similar appearance. The State objected to Landry’s appearance based on lack of materiality and the Court sustained the objection saying Landry’s appearance was irrelеvant.
Defense counsel contends that the similarity in appearance between Landry and the defendant would have undersсored for the jury the possibility that the saleslady made a mistake. The defense argues that the trial court’s ruling denied the defendant his сonstitutional right to present a defense and compel the attendance of a witness on his own behalf. Washington v. Texas,
Landry’s appeаrance could have had probative value on the possibility the victim misidentified the defendant. However, the defendant does not articulate how he would argue misidentification and we do not find abuse of discretion in refusing to compel Landry’s appearance under the circumstances of this case. The trial judge saw the defendant and was in a position to comparе him with the photographs of Landry. We compared the photographs of Landry and Joseph and find no facial similarity. A trial judge’s ruling аs to the relevancy of evidence should not be disturbed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion. State v. Alford,
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
The defendant requested a speciаl jury instruction that evidence under the control of a party which is not produced should be considered detrimental to that party.
It was during closing argument when defense counsel first questioned why the
“The state and the defendant shall have the right before argument to submit to the court special written charges for the jury. Such charges may be received by the court in its discretion after argument has begun.”
$ $ ‡ sf: sjs if:
The defendant’s tardy requested charge denied him an absolute right to have the charge considered; rather, the decision fеll within the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Morris,
The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
Judges Patrick M. Schott, Lawrence A. Chehar-dy and Denis A. Barry of the Fourth Circuit participated in this decision as Associate Justices Ad Hoc, joined by Justices Calogero, Dennis, Watson, and Lemmon.
. Eddie Landry, the defendant’s alleged partner, had been arrested by the Kenner Police Department and was in possession of several pairs of jeans and shirts from All American Jeans, as well as a .22 automatic revolver. The police were awarе that Landry was an associate of Joseph which resulted in the photographs used to identify both men. Separate bills of information charged each man with armed robbery.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The trial court clearly abused its discretion in refusing to compel the appеarance of Eddie Landry under the circumstances of this case. Landry’s appearance and testimony were materiаl and relevant to defendant’s misidentification defense. The trial court’s ruling has violated the defendant’s fundamental constitutional right to présent a defense and compel the attendance of witnesses on his behalf.