State v. SpotState v. Spot
Sheila Spot was charged with violating
In this bench trial, the state “waived” opening statement, and the defendant did not enter an objection. Defendant assigns as error this waiver by the state of opening statement. She contends that an opening statement by the prosecutor is mandatоry under Louisiana law.
An irregularity or error cannot be availed of after a verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.
In any event, the assignment does not have merit. In the recent case of State v. Bolen, 338 So.2d 97 (La.1976), which also involved prosecution for a relative felony (negligent homicide) and a bench trial, we held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to order the state to make an opening statement. Citing cases which had held that in misdemeanor trials an opening statement is not required (State v. Layssard, 310 So.2d 107 (La.1975); State v. Himel, 260 La. 949, 257 So.2d 670 (1972); State v. Didier, 259 La. 967, 254 So.2d 262 (1971)), we went on to say, in effect, that absent an elemеnt of unfair surprise defendant is not prejudiced by the state‘s declining via opening statement to inform defеndant of the nature of the charge and the evidence upon which the state intends to rely. In the cаse at bar defendant neither alleges nor shows that she was unfairly surprised.
Accordingly assignment of error numbеr one, for the dual reasons above stated, does not have merit.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2.
Defendant complains that the trial court erred in refusing to grant her motion for a directed verdict. That motion, actually designated a motion for judgment of acquittal in a bench trial (
We are therefore limited in our review of the record in this case to determining whether the state failed to present any evidence at all to prove the crime charged or an essential element thereof. Defendant does not assert that the state failed to provе a particular element, but according to
The state established through the testimony of two New Orleаns police officers, Patrolman Foster and Sergeant Keyser, that defendant Spot was arrestеd in the early morning hours of December 4, 1974 for violating the municipal ordinance proscribing loitering in public for the purpose of inducing another to commit an indecent sexual act. When Officer Foster arrested defendant, Sergeant Keyser was sitting in a police car nearby and defendant requested that she be allowed to speak to him. Officer Foster took her to the car and she got in the rear of the vehicle. She asked Sergeant Keyser if she could get in “the union.” When questioned by the two officers what she meant by “the union,” she said that she had heard other prostitutes say that if you paid fifty dollars a week, thе police officers would allow the girls to solicit men for prostitution without being arrested. These officers testified that defendant then gave Sergeant Keyser five dollars and promised to give him the balanсe later.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Notes
“Public bribery is the giving or offering to give, directly or indirectly, anything of apparent prеsent or prospective value to any of the following persons, with the intent to influence his conduсt in relation to his position, employment, or duty:
(1) Public officer or public employee;
* * * * * *
Whoever commits the crime of public bribery shall be fined nоt more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or bоth.”