PONDER
Justice. ODOM, J., and FOURNET, J., dissent.
OPINION
PONDER, Justice.
The
defendant, Jack O'Day, was convicted of manslaughter and
sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 6 years and 6
months to 20 years. The defendant appeals from the conviction
and sentence.
During
the trial, nine bills of exception were taken to the
court's ruling by the defendant's counsel.
Bill of
exception No. 1 was taken to the court's ruling
permitting the taking of testimony at the scene of the crime.
The
defendant contends that the court was without right to permit
the taking of testimony of witnesses, to permit the jury to
perform an experiment, and to permit the introduction of
physical objects in evidence at the scene.
The per
curiam of the trial judge to this bill reads as follows:
"This
Bill was taken to the ruling of the Court, which permitted
certain witnesses to testify at the scene of the crime. The bill recites that the Court was in session at
the scene of the crime; that all the officers of the Court,
as well as the Jury, the defendant and his counsel, and the
prosecuting attorneys were present. The Bill does not object
to the visit to the scene, but objects to the taking of
testimony at the scene. The scene was visited and testimony
taken on motion of the State. All of the witnesses who
testified at the scene of the crime with one lesser exception
had already testified in full as State witnesses in the court
room.
"The
Court concurred with the State in the belief that it was
necessary for a proper understanding of the evidence, and
that the Jury may have a fair and better opportunity to pass
upon the credibility of certain material witnesses, that the
Jury be permitted to visit the locus of the crime, to-wit:
the immediate rear of the
L. & A. R. R. passenger depot, New Orleans.
"At
the scene, the State recalled the witnesses in question,
to-wit: one Leonard Cline, one Henry Hoffstadt, one Henry
Viot, one Paul Salvaggio, and one Simon Palanque, and had
them pointout at the scene of the crime certain objects and
places, the position of the automobile of appellant in which
the deceased was shot; the place where her body was found,
some forty feet from the car; the projecting water pipe
anchored appellant's car to the spot and made it
impossible for him to drive it from the scene, after the
homicide; a view from the position of the water pipe, through
the passenger station proper, revealing the uptown portion of
the witness Salvaggio's business place on
the opposite side of S. Rampart Street, facing the station,
and as stated, visible from the spot where the water pipe
showed through the station, immediately before the fatal shot
was fired.
"Appellant
drove his car into the station premises from Saratoga Street.
There is no vehicular passage way on the Railroad property,
except two railroad train tracks. Pillars support a small
shed extending the length of the rear portion of the station.
"A
proper understanding of many vital and necessary facts, made
a visit to the scene by the Court and jury a necessity, and
only sworn and competent witnesses pointed out objects and
positions and elucidated their testimony to the Jury at the
scene. One witness testified at the scene, who had not
previously testified in the Court room, to-wit: one Simon
Palanque, an attache of the District Attorney's office,
who was sworn and called upon to step off the distance
between the water pipe and Saratoga Street, that the record
might show what the Jury could see.
"This
Bill also objects to the taking of testimony (in the presence
of the Jury, the appellant and his attorneys, the prosecuting
attorneys, the Court and all the attaches of the Court) in
the basement of the Criminal Court building, where the Ford
V-8 coupe of appellant which had been taken from its
anchorage to the water pipe in the L. & A. Station by the
police, was wrapped and sealed, and preserved and stored, to
be used as evidence in the case.
"The deceased Ethel Hughes was shot once, the
bullet entering the skull on the left side behind the left
ear, travelled through the brain and made its exit on the
right upper and forward temporal region of the head. This
fact, plus the existence of some strands of hair, some bits
of bone and some fragments of brain tissue, which the bullet
forced against the right hand front tip corner of
appellant's coupe and which were not removed by the
authorities from the automobile, showed conclusively that the
deceased was shot after she had half risen from the seat of
the automobile, half turned from the driver of the
automobile, and was in the act of stepping out of the
automobile, and making her exit from the coupe, just as the
witnesses saw her attempting to do on South Rampart Street
prior thereto. Because there were no witnesses to the
shooting itself which occurred at 1:05 A. M. in this dark,
lonely and deserted place, the defense properly took the
advantage and gave the Jury to understand that it was
encumbent upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that O'Day did not act in self-defense. The physical
facts above stated showed conclusively that the woman was not
shot by a person in self-defense.
"The
exact spot of the interior of the car to which the hair, bone
and tissue adhered, as well as the existence of the hair,
bone and brain tissue at that place, was evidence delicate to
handle, and a fact indispensibly necessary to the State's
case. The best evidence, and as far as the Jury was
concerned, the most satisfactory proof of this indispensible
fact, and other equally necessary facts was the
ocular demonstration of the car to the Jury. This portion of
the appellant's coupe was not detachable and could not be
brought into the court room. The court building construction
made it impossible to bring the vehicle to any other place in
the court building except the basement where it was. These
considerations are emphasized because this Court believes
that this bill of exception eloquently demonstrates how fatal
to the cause of justice would be such a principle as
appellant contends for.
"This
Court respectfully believes that it was a matter of necessity
as well as intelligent procedure that witnesses point out to
the Jury the particular part of the automobile to which the
evidence adhered; to have the Jury see for themselves how
well the body of the car had been sealed to preserve the
evidence in its interior, and consequently how genuine was
this evidence,
to have witnesses show where, in the interior of the car, the
fatal bullet was recovered and other material features of the
case so necessary for the Jury to have accurate knowledge of.
* * *"
The
defendant admits that it was in the discretion of the court
to permit the jury to view the scene but objected to any
evidence being taken at the scene.
There
is no form of legislation in Louisiana that provides that the
jury may be taken to the scene or to take testimony at that
place. While on the other hand there is no form of
legislation that prohibits it. The purpose of a trial is to
ascertain the truth. It is impossible to bring the locus into
the court and introduce it in evidence. It is
now well recognized, and there is no dispute herein raised to
the contrary, that courts may take the jury to view the
scene. Upon examination of the authorities of the different
States, we find two theories as to whether or not a view of
the scene constitutes the taking of evidence. One theory
holds that a view of the scene does not constitute taking of
evidence. The other theory, in our opinion conforming more to
reason, is that a view of the scene does constitute the
taking of evidence. We are of the opinion that the most
reasonable rule is laid down in Wigmore on Evidence, vol. 3,
p. 2329, § 1803:
"A view is allowable in criminal as well as in civil
cases (Ante, § 1163). But is it necessary, under the
hearsay rule and the constitutional provision sanctioning it
for criminal cases (Ante, § 1397), that the accused be
present at the view? This question has been answered by some
courts in the affirmative, chiefly on the theory that
otherwise the accused is deprived of the right to be
confronted by the witnesses against him."
This in
effect holds that the viewing of the scene is taking evidence
because it requires the presence of the accused. It is only
reasonable that, viewing the scene, the physical facts and
the circumstances surrounding the scene is as much the taking
of evidence as taking the testimony of witnesses. A view of
the scene without explanation might confuse the jury. Such
confusion in many instances might operate against the
defendant and do him great harm. Such confusion
may defeat justice. The explanation of the locus would enable
the jury to determine the real truth. Neither the State or
the defendant have any right to complain at injury caused by
the truth. Witnesses are permitted to draw diagrams of the
locus, while testifying in court, and to testify and explain
the locus from the diagram and to point out the different
objects on the diagram to the jury. It does not conform to
reason to say that you can draw a diagram of the locus and
explain it with testimony but cannot point out the objects at...