State v. Curry
| Decision Date | 19 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 56729,56729 |
| Citation | 325 So.2d 598 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Leon CURRY. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Vincent Wilkins, Jr., Acting Director, Roland T. Huson, III, Appellate Counsel, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie Brown, Dist. Atty., Bryan E. Bush, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant, Leon Curry, was convicted on a charge of armed robbery. La.R.S. 14:67. He was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for fifty years, to run consecutively with a sentence previously imposed. On this appeal he contends three errors in the proceeding support the contention that the conviction and sentence should be reversed.
Sometime around 7:30 on the morning of August 2, 1974, Curry entered the One Hour Martinizing Cleaners on North Acadian Drive in the city of Baton Rouge. He was dressed in a pair of cut off pants sneakers, a green shirt, and a red bandanna that covered the lower half of his face. He pointed a pistol at the woman who was employed as a clerk there and ordered her to lay on the floor, threatening to kill her if she refused. Next he rifled the cash register, emptying it of approximately $50. The clerk was also made to surrender her purse from which Curry took $1.00. He then ordered her to lock the front and rear entrance doors to the establishment, and forced her, on threat of being killed, to undress in the rear room where he raped her. She was then ordered to remain where she was. Following this he made good his eacape.
Despite the mask that Curry wore, the victim recognized him by his voice, his hair, his forehead and eyes. On several previous occasions he had come into the shop and once signed a ticket to get clothes.
After Curry left, the victim called the police. When they arrived she told them she had been raped by Curry. Police investigated and took photographs of the area.
During the trial Detective O'Brien was shown photographs referred to as Exhibits 1--4. He testified that he had seen the photographs before and the area they portrayed. He said they reflected the conditions of the area at the time he investigated the case. He also said Exhibit 4 represented the counter in the cleaners where they attempted to lift fingerprints. At this point defense counsel objected that a foundation had not been laid to show who took the photographs.
Whereupon, O'Brien testified that he ordered the photographs taken; they reflected what he saw at the time he investigated the case; and he was there when they were taken. When the State's attorney offered the photographs in evidence, defense counsel again objected that the offering was premature, the photographs had no probative value, and they would tend to mislead the jury at some later point when they were asked to view the photographs.
The objection was overruled, the photographs were admitted into evidence, and this ruling is assigned as error.
In brief to this Court defense counsel argues that the photographs could not be introduced until there was 'some testimony as to their contents.' Relying upon Section 214 of McCormick on Evidence 2d, he argues that a photograph is admissible as a 'graphic portrayal of oral testimony' and therefore it cannot be admitted without evidence describing its content.
Pertinent parts of the rule relied upon provide that a photograph
According to our review of the testimony the requirements of the rule in McCormick have been met. This assignment has no merit.
When Police Detective O'Brien was called by the State as a witness on its case in chief, the State's attorney asked that the jury be retired so that a foundation for the voluntariness of a statement made by Curry could be established. Out of the presence of the jury, O'Brien testified that Curry told him that he, Curry, knew of the laundry in question, that he had been there before, but that he knew nothing of a rape or robbery. At that time the trial judge ruled that Curry's statement was exculpatory and voluntarily made.
When the jury was returned, the State's attorney asked O'Brien what Curry said. There was no objection by defense counsel. O'Brien answered:
'He told me that he knew of the place that was in question--the laundry, that he had been there before; and that he had conducted business with the laundry, having his clothes cleaned there; that he did not know anything about a rape or robbery.'
On cross-examination, O'Brien was again asked, this time by defense counsel, what it was that Curry had told him. O'Brien repeated his previous testimony. Later, defense counsel objected to the introduction of State Exhibit 8, the form containing the waiver of rights from which Curry had been read his Miranda warnings. He seeks to use this objection as a vehicle to advance his contention under this assignment of error. According to that contention, the quoted statement given by him to the police immediately after his arrest was inadmissible at the trial because the State failed to give notice prior to the opening statement as required by Article 768 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The contention has no merit. The statement alluded to was exculpatory and it was received in evidence without objection. La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 841.
A series of defense objections to any evidence of, or reference in argument to, the rape form the basis of these assignments of error.
Initially the inquiry is to determine the relevancy of the evidence of rape to this prosecution. La.R.S. 15:435.
'Relevant evidence is that tending to show the commission of the offense and the intent, or tending to negative the commission of the offense and the intent.
'Facts necessary to be known to explain a relevant fact, or which support an inference raised by such fact, are admissible.' La.R.S. 15:441.
The central and crucial issue of this trial was the identity of the accused. The issue was sharply formed when defendant denied that he took part in the robbery and when he called Joyce Simmons, his common-law-wife, who testified that he was with her all morning long on August 2, 1974, and therefore he could not have been the party who committed the crime. It is undisputed, also, that when the robber entered the laundry, he wore a mask to conceal his identity.
This evidence necessarily called the victim's identification of the accused into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Edwards, 64204
...the res gestae exception to the prohibition against the introduction of other crimes evidence. As this court remarked in State v. Curry, 325 So.2d 598, 602 (La., 1976), "(w)ithout (such) evidence, the complete story of the crime (could) not be The trial judge did not err in allowing Michael......
-
State v. Matthews
... ... Therefore, it was also admissible as part of the res gestae. La.R.S. 15:448. What forms part of the res gestae is always admissible in evidence. La.R.S. 15:447; State v. Morris, 340 So.2d 195 (La.1976); State v. Curry, 325 So.2d 598 (La.1976). Hence, the trial judge did not err in permitting introduction of evidence of the murder of the victim of the armed robbery ... Assignment of Error No. 4 lacks merit ... ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5 ... Defendant contends the trial ... ...
-
State v. Cass
...Therefore, evidence of the rape was admissible as part of the res gestae. State v. McCoy, 337 So.2d 192 (La.1976); State v. Curry, 325 So.2d 598 (La.1976); State v. Robinson, 302 So.2d 270 (La.1974); State v. Matthews, 292 So.2d 226 (La.1974). Moreover, evidence of the rape was highly relev......
-
State v. Boyd
...forms part of the res gestae is always admissible in evidence. La.R.S. 15:447; State v. Morris, 340 So.2d 195 (La.1976); State v. Curry, 325 So.2d 598 (La.1976). . . ." The evidence in State v. Matthews, supra, showed that the victim could have been robbed at the time of his murder. See als......