State v. WhiteState v. White
A new Cadillac automobile was stolen from a dealership in Bаton Rouge on July 22, 1973. The automobile was recovered in Los Angeles, California, on July 27, 1973 while in the possession of defendant and his wife, at which time defendant was arrested by the Los Angeles police and returned to the police authorities in Baton Rouge.
Defendant was charged by bill of information with felony theft in violation of
Bill 1
Officer Achee оf the Baton Rouge Police Department was called by the State as a witness to give the backgrоund of defendant‘s arrest. He testified that he was assigned to the auto theft division of the police deрartment. In that capacity, he received a report of the stolen automobile. He also testified that he had been contacted by the Los Angeles police. Before he could testify further as to the content of the message, defense counsel objected that it was hearsay. Whereupon the State argued that the evidence was being tendered “not for the truth of the utterance, but fоr the fact that the utterance was made by the Los Angeles Police Department, put on the telеtype, and this officer received it....” The objection was overruled, the ruling of the court allowed the introduction of the evidence for the limited extent for which it was submitted by the State. Defense counsel rеserved this bill to the ruling.
Following this ruling, Officer Achee testified as to the content of the teletype messagе. It disclosed that the Los Angeles police had recovered a 1973, tan Cadillac with a brown top in defendant‘s possession. This was the description of the automobile Officer Achee had previously broadcast as stolen as a result of a report to him of its theft.
This situation seems to fit within the well-known rule that еvidence is non hearsay which is offered not to prove the truth of the facts recited, but to provе that the utterance occurred, in this case to prove that a teletype had been sent by thе Los Angeles police. State v. Raymond, 258 La. 1, 245 So.2d 335 (1971); State v. Gonzales, 258 La. 103, 245 So.2d 372 (1971). But we will not rest our decision on this basis, for the ruling was harmless in view of the testimony of Offiсer Wilson of the Baton Rouge police. He went to California to obtain transfer of custody from the California authorities. At that time, he testified, defendant requested that Officer Wilson take him to the stolen automobile to collect his personal effects. The key they used to open the Cadillac wаs on a key ring with a number of keys belonging to defendant. Also defendant admitted that he drove the automobilе from Baton Rouge to Los Angeles.
This bill has no merit.
Bill 2
This bill was reserved when the trial judge refused defendant‘s motion for a direсted verdict. The contention is that the State failed to prove that defendant intended to deprive the owner of the automobile permanently, an essential element of the crime.
In a jury trial, a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict only “if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.”
This bill is without merit.
Bill 5
During the trial, the defendant took the witness stand and, on cross-examination, admitted to convictions of auto theft, forgery, theft, and issuing worthless checks. Thereafter, following defense counsel‘s closing argument, during rebuttal, the State‘s attorney referred to previous crimes for which the defendant had been convicted. He said, “This isn‘t his first go round. He was in jail, he was convicted of auto theft, forgery, and I don‘t remember what other crimes that he said he was convicted of when he was on the stand.” Defense counsel оbjected to this argument and moved for a mistrial based upon
After his ruling denying a mistrial, the judge admonished the jury that evidence of other crimes admitted in evidence could only be considered in determining credibility of the accused; and it could not be considered on the question of guilt or innocence.
Evidenсe of prior crimes was admissible to question defendant‘s credibility when he chose to testify on his own behаlf. Since he admitted these crimes, no ground for a mistrial resulted from the prosecutor‘s remarks. The evidеnce alluded to was admissible.
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
BARHAM, J., concurs.