State v. Becnel
| Decision Date | 09 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-KA-355,83-KA-355 |
| Citation | 441 So.2d 339 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Michael BECNEL. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Frank J. Uddo, New Orleans, for Michael Becnel defendant-appellant.
Harry R. Morgan, Asst. Dist. Atty., 29th Judicial Dist. Court, Parish of St. Charles, Hahnville, Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., La. Dept. of Justice, Criminal Division, New Orleans, for State of La. plaintiff-appellee.
Before BOUTALL, GAUDIN and GRISBAUM, JJ.
The appellant Michael Becnel appeals his conviction of manslaughter, which resulted in a sentence of 12 years imprisonment. We affirm the conviction for the reasons which follow.
Michael Becnel was indicted and tried for the shooting of the man whom his former girlfriend began dating after she and appellant had broken off a 2 1/2 year relationship.
The shooting took place at the home of the former girlfriend, Mary Washington, on the night of February 27, 1982. On that night Becnel came by Washington's house, ostensibly to retrieve his television set. He was armed at the time with a handgun. When Becnel was refused entry into the house he forced his way in, and according to Mary Washington's testimony, then struck her and she fell.
Becnel proceeded down the hall to one of the rear bedrooms and as Washington got up to go after him, three to four shots were fired. At this point, the testimony is conflicting.
Washington and her 14 year old daughter Daron testified that Becnel was shouting, Both also testified that Becnel fired first, through the open door of the back bedroom. The victim then returned fire, wounding Becnel in the abdomen. According to Washington Becnel then fired two more shots before retreating down the hallway.
Appellant's version of the story was that he was ambushed in the hallway, and that the victim fired first, from behind the bedroom door. Becnel testified that he then fired two shots into the closed bedroom door in an act of self-defense.
The victim, Donald Borne, also known as "White Eye," was fatally wounded by one of the shots fired by Becnel, and died the next morning. Becnel drove himself to the hospital for treatment of his gunshot wound.
Becnel was indicted for second degree murder and a jury of 12 returned a verdict of manslaughter. The trial judge, citing Becnel's lack of criminal record and his belief that appellant was unlikely, judging from his past productive life, to commit another crime, sentenced appellant to 12 years at hard labor out of the maximum possible under La.R.S. 14:31 of 21 years.
Appellant initially assigned 9 specifications of error for our review, but since he has briefed only 5, and has not elected to orally argue this case, we consider the other four assignments of error to be abandoned.
1. The trial court erred in not quashing the bill of indictment based on the fact that the indictment was in improper form.
2. The trial court erred in qualifying Louise Braun as a firearms identification expert, since she did not know the weight conversions between a 7mm and an 8mm bullet.
3. The trial court erred in refusing to accept as an expert witness the private investigator of the defendant, Mr. John Haydel.
4. The trial court erred in not permitting the diagram drawn by the private investigator, John Haydel, to be introduced into evidence.
5. The trial court erred in not granting the motion for new trial.
The indictment defect of which appellant complains in Assignment of Error # 1 appears to be that "A True Bill" was printed, not hand-written on the indictment and that the Grand Jury foreman's identity cannot be ascertained from the indictment because his signature is illegible.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Motion to Quash was not timely presented to the trial court, we will make the following observations with regard to this argument. Firstly, in State ex rel v. Henderson, 259 La. 691, 251 So.2d 639 (1971) the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the endorsement "A True Bill" is not required to be hand-written.
Secondly, we have uncovered no requirement under the law that the Grand Jury foreman's signature be legible. Furthermore, the foreman's identity was ascertained and read into the record prior to commencement of the trial.
This assignment of error has no merit.
In Assignments of Error # 2 through 4 appellant complains of various evidentiary rulings of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Simms
...pursuant to Uniform Rules-Court of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4. State v. Smith, 452 So.2d 251 (La.App. 5th Cir.1984); State v. Becnel, 441 So.2d 339 (La.App. 5th Cir.1983).1 The relevant Louisiana Criminal Code of Procedural Articles on this issue are Articles 802 and 804.Article 802 reads as follo......
-
State v. Dean
... ... This assignment of error is without merit ... Assignments of Error No. 5 and No. 8 were not briefed and are deemed abandoned. See Uniform Rules--Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4. See also State v. Smith, 452 So.2d 251 (La.App. 5th Cir.1984); State v. Becnel, 441 So.2d 339 (La.App. 5th Cir.1983) ... For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence of the defendant are affirmed ... AFFIRMED ... WICKER, J., concurs ... WICKER, Judge, concurring ... I ... ...
-
State v. Allen
... ... 2. The trial court committed reversible error in sentencing the defendant on June 28, 1983, which sentence is excessive ... The above assignments were not briefed and are considered abandoned. See State v. Becnel 441 So.2d 339 (La.App. 5th Cir.1983) and State v. Dirden 430 So.2d 798 (La.App. 5th Cir.1983) ... In the defendant's brief, discussion was presented that the trial judge did not comply with the sentencing guidelines under La.C.Cr.P., Art. 894.1, but did not once mention that the ... ...
-
State v. Martin
... ... Assignment of error No. 1 was neither briefed nor argued, and accordingly is deemed abandoned. See Uniform Rules--Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4. See also State v. Smith, 452 So.2d 251 (La.App. 5th Cir.1984); State v. Becnel, 441 So.2d 339 (La.App. 5th Cir.1983). As the remaining two assignments (Errors 2 and 3) were joined for argument in appellant's brief, they have likewise been joined for argument in this opinion ... On February 9, 1984, defense counsel filed a discovery motion requesting among ... ...