State v. Carvin
| Citation | 308 So.2d 757 |
| Decision Date | 24 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 55457,55457 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. James CARVIN, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Sidney C. Sundbery, Duval, Arceneaux & Lewis, Houma, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norval J. Rhodes, Dist. Atty., James L. Alcock, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant Carvin was convicted of attempted murder, La.R.S. 14:30, 27, and sentenced to seven years at hard labor. In appealing, he relies upon four bills of exceptions. We find no merit in any of them and therefore affirm.
Context Facts:
The victim Champagne was carrying two thousand dollars in currency on his person. While driving his pickup home on a country highway, his passage was obstructed by a tan vehicle which slowed several times in front of him, apparently in efforts to make him stop. Later, the tan vehicle blocked the highway, but Champagne was able to pass around it.
The occupants of the tan vehicle fired at and wounded him. However, Champagne continued down the highway at high speed, and the two young blacks in the other vehicle did not pursue him further.
Earlier, Champagne had memorized the license number of the tan vehicle and had written it down. After he secured the assistance of the police after his wounding, they ascertained the location of the vehicle (at the defendant Carvin's house) through the license number. Later that evening, about three hours after the shooting, the law enforcement officers and Champagne went to Carvin's house, where Champagne identified the vehicle and the license number as those involved in his wounding.
The four bills urged on this appeal do not present reversible error, for the following reasons:
Champagne's written notation of the license number had been introduced in evidence in connection with his own testimony. When the document was handed to a deputy sheriff who was testifying, the defendant objected to this slip of paper being used to determine ownership, stating that the only legal evidence of ownership is a certificate of title. Tr. 108.
The objection was properly overruled. The license number written down by the victim had previously been introduced as relevant evidence. The deputy's testimony that the license number had been radioed in to determine ownership was likewise relevant, as showing how the police had ascertained the location of the car previously described as used in the shooting.
The assault occurred about 6:30 PM on a cold February evening. The defendant was arrested at about 9:30 PM, after the victim identified the tan vehicle and the license number as involved in his shooting. The vehicle was parked outside the defendant's home.
Three deputies had come by the defendant's home earlier, about 7:30 to 8:30 PM. They had inspected the car and, with permission of the defendant, had lifted the hood to see how hot the motor was.
At the trial, the defendant's wife and his father were each asked if the deputies had made any comment to one another at the time they felt the hood. The prosecution objected, in order to keep this information from the jury as hearsay. The defense contended that, under the broad Louisiana res gestae exception to hearsay, the evidence was admissible as forming part of the circumstances immediately connected with the incident.
The trial judge at first overruled the state's objection. Nevertheless, on determined re-urging by the state, he sustained the technical objection. As a result, these two bills were taken.
The form of the question may have been too broad, and thus the objection may have been technically correct. The intent of the question, as later testimony revealed, was to permit these family members to testify that the deputies found the automobile motor cool .
The deputies' sense impression uttered at the time--that the motor was too cool--should be recognized as a res gestae (contemporaneous statement) exception to the hearsay rule. Pugh, Louisiana Evidence Law 509--512 (1974); McCormick on Evidence, Section 298 (2d 3d.1972); ALI Model Code of Evidence, Section 512 a (1942); cf. Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803(1) ( 51 F.R.D....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Edwards, 64204
...(is) therefore not hearsay." See State v. Monk, 315 So.2d 727 (La., 1975); State v. Bluain, 315 So.2d 749 (La., 1975); and State v. Carvin, 308 So.2d 757 (La., 1975). In this case, the officers' testimony was therefore proper as an explanation of how (at least in the state's theory), the in......
-
State in Interest of Aaron
...van. Sgt. Windham testified that Aaron was crouched in the passenger's seat holding the shotgun in a "ready" position. In State v. Carvin, 308 So.2d 757 (La.1975), our Supreme Court held that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant had fir......
-
State v. Necaise
...trial brings out the information sought. State v. Jordan, 420 So.2d 420 (La.1982); State v. Hills, 379 So.2d 740 (La.1980); State v. Carvin, 308 So.2d 757 (La.1975); State v. Russell, 434 So.2d 460 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1983). In Jordan, supra at 430, the court By Assignment No. 12 defendant con......
-
State v. Wright
...to the introduction into evidence of exhibits previously not objected to. Also see State v. Eastin, 419 So.2d 933 (La.1982); State v. Carvin, 308 So.2d 757 (La.1975); State v. Roberson, 454 So.2d 343 (La.App. 4th This assignment is without merit. Right to Remain Silent In this assignment, d......