State v. Clark
| Decision Date | 18 February 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 40468,40468 |
| Citation | 220 La. 946,57 So.2d 904 |
| Parties | STATE v. CLARK. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Lloyd C. Hoffmann, G. Wray Gill, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Severn T. Darden, Dist. Atty., and Phil Trice, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for appellee.
On January 22, 1951 the defendant, herein, Freddie Clark, was charged in a bill of information with willfully and unlawfully possessing and having under his control a narcotic drug, to wit: three capsules of heroin in violation of LSA-R.S. 40:962. He was arraigned on February 5 1951 and pleaded not guilty. On March 21, 1951 he was tried by a jury and found guilty as charged. A motion for a new trial was filed on his behalf on April 19, 1951 and on that same day it was overruled.
On June 12, 1951 the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor in the State penitentiary for a term of three years and from his conviction and sentence he has taken and perfected this appeal.
On December 26, 1950 two policemen entered the house at 2606 Cadiz Street and arrested three persons. One of the arresting officers then left to go to a telephone and call for a patrol wagon. While he was gone the defendant appeared on the scene and upon discovering the presence of the officer who had remained, turned and ran with the officer in pursuit. Upon the other officer's return and upon his being trapped in an alley, the defendant threw to the ground a piece of cellophane which was at once picked up by one of the police officers and found to contain three capsules of heroin. He was then placed under arrest.
While the police officers were escorting him to the patrol car, defendant requested permission to obtain the key from his automobile which he pointed out to the officers. A search of the automobile revealed a spoon in the glove compartment. The bowl of the spoon was blackened on the bottom and upon analysis was found to contain traces of heroin.
Bill of Exception No. 1 was reserved to the court's ruling that the spoon was admissible in evidence, and also all testimony tending to show that it contained traces of narcotics. It is the contention of the defendant that such evidence constituted a separate and distinct crime, the discovery of which took place after the defendant's arrest for having three capsules of heroin in his possession.
The cases relied on by counsel for the defendant are not in point. The testimony was relevant and admissible as corroborative evidence of the intentional possession of narcotics. Evidence of a different crime from the one charged may be received when both offenses are closely linked so as to form part of the res gestae. State v. Jugger, 217 La. 687, 707, 47 So.2d 46, and cases cited therein.
The case of State v. Sears, 217 La. 47, 46 So.2d 34 presented a situation in which the court found the evidence which had been discovered at the scene of the crime to be inadmissible for the reason that it was not connected in any way with the crime with which the accused stood charged and did not stand in immediate causal relation to that crime. However, a thorough discussion of the rule governing the admissibility or rejection of that kind of evidence is to be found in the opinion with abundant citation of authority from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. James
...corroborative of the alleged fact that defendant possessed a narcotic drug. State v. Birdsell, 232 La. 725, 95 So.2d 290; State v. Clark, 220 La. 946, 57 So.2d 904. The testimony of the officers with respect to a previous search of the defendant's house and with respect to statements of the......
-
State v. Johnson
...form no part of the ingredients of the crime charged. Neither was the evidence a part of res gestae, as was in the case of State v. Clark, 220 La. 946, 57 So.2d 904. In the case of State v. Johnson, 38 La. Ann. 686, where the defendant was charged with the crime of burglary, the introductio......
-
State v. Gaines
...intentional possession of narcotics, and for this reason he admitted them in evidence. Under the holding of this court in State v. Clark, 220 La. 946, 57 So.2d 904, these objects because of their nature were properly admitted as corroborating evidence when considered with the charge of poss......
-
State v. Armstrong
... ... The distinction is recognized in State v. Cummings, 217 La. 672, 47 So.2d 41 (1950) * * *.' ... Other cases cited as the source of authority for Article 844 are State v. Miller, 146 La. 236, 83 So. 539 (1920); State v. Smith, 149 La. 700, 90 So. 28 (1921); and State v. Clark, 220 La. 946, 57 So.2d 904 (1952). See also State v. Kahn, 154 La. 683, 98 So. 86 ... In the Miller case the Court said: 'It is well settled that the mere minute entry showing the reservation of a bill of exception in a criminal case cannot receive consideration in this court ... ...