State v. Hall
Citation | 253 La. 425,218 So.2d 320 |
Decision Date | 20 January 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 49569,49569 |
Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Edward HALL, Jr. |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Sheldon G. Fernandez, James J. O'Connor, Asst. Dist. Attys., for relator.
Morgan, Von Hoene & Becker, William B. Morgan, II, New Orleans, for respondent.
On January 25, 1968 the accused was indicted for the murder of Harold Galt. Prior to trial, defense counsel filed certain preliminary motions, among which was a Motion to Produce and Inspect, requesting a pre-trial inspection of a video-tape recording of a confession made by the accused, which has never been transcribed to a written form. After a hearing, the trial judge granted the accused's motion and ordered the State to produce, prior to trial, the video-tape recording of the confession for inspection by defense counsel. The State timely objected to the ruling and, when the objection was overruled, reserved a bill of exceptions. In due course, the State's application for certiorari was granted, and the issue presented has been argued and submitted for our decision.
The trial judge in his per curiam to the bill of exceptions stated that the question posed in the instant case is res nova and needs clarification by this Court. He then declared:
(Italics ours)
The judge concluded that in the state of the jurisprudence he was unable to distinguish a video-tape confession from a written confession and, therefore, ordered its production for pre-trial inspection.
It is, of course, the well-settled jurisprudence of this Court that a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a pre-trial inspection of his written confession, but he cannot be permitted to have discovery of an oral confession. In one of our recent decisions, State v. Hunter, 250 La 295, 195 So.2d 273 (1967), it was aptly observed:
'Louisiana was in the vanguard of the states in granting a defendant the right to inspect his written confession before trial. See State v. Dorsey, supra; State v. Tune, 13 N.J. 203, 98 A.2d 881; and 74 Harv.L.Rev. 940, 1054. However, we have steadfastly refused to broaden this holding into full pre-trial discovery of the varied items of evidence in criminal cases. See State v. Johnson, 249 La. 950, 192 So.2d 135 ( ); State v. Dickson, 248 La. 500, 180 So.2d 403 ( ); State v. Pailet, 246 La. 483, 165 So.2d 294 (wire-tap recordings); State v. Bickham, 239 La. 1094, 121 So.2d 207 (defendant's oral statements); State v. Lea, 228 La. 724, 84 So.2d 169 (oral confession); State v. Shourds, 224 La. 955, 71 So.2d 340 (documents); State v. Simpson, 216 La. 212, 43 So.2d 585 ( ); State v. Vallery, 214 La. 495, 38 So.2d 148 ( ); and State v. Mattio, 212 La. 284, 31 So.2d 801 (police report).
'In State v. Shourds, supra, the Court stated:
"It is the settled law of this State that an accused in a criminal case is without right to a pre-trial inspection of the evidence upon which the prosecution relies for a conviction.'
'The holding of the Court has been dictated by vital considerations related to fair balance in criminal procedure and the protection of the public against the revages of crime.'
While the judge has opined inability to determine any physical attributes of a written confession which distinguishes it from an oral one, we entertain no difficulty whatever in perceiving a vast difference. A written confession, as we recognized in the Dorsey case, is documentary evidence, being a writing to which the accused himself subscribes and, when the proper foundation is laid, it is admissible against him under the best evidence rule respecting the facts therein contained.
It is, therefore, just and proper that the accused confessor be given pre-trial access to such a confession in order to prepare for whatever defense he may have to offset, if he is able, the inculpatory statement to which he has subscribed. But pre-trial inspection must be limited to documentary confessions or other recorded admissions of guilt which may be found to be of the same evidentiary value as documentary proof for, as stated in People ex rel. Lemon v. Supreme Court, 245 N.Y. 24, 156 N.E. 84, 52 A.L.R. 200 (Cardozo, Ch. J.): 'Documents to be subject to inspection must be evidence themselves * * *', the Court holding that documents in possession of the district attorney, which are themselves inadmissible in evidence, are not subject to pre-trial inspection.
Conversely, since an oral admission of guilt or statement of an inculpatory nature can only be established by parol evidence, it has no legal existence in advance of trial and is not in essence a confession until it is determined to be such at the trial. People v. Riley, 46 Misc.2d 221, 258 N.Y.S.2d 932. See also State v. Terrell, 175 La. 758, 144 So. 488. Hence, this Court has repeatedly refused discovery of oral confessions as they are not tangible evidence in the hands of the State susceptible of oyer and delivery to the accused for inspection.
However, we are not concerned here with an oral confession dependent on parol proof for establishment, but an electronic video-tape recorded...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jenkins
...along with written statements (see State v. Dorsey, 207 La. 928, 22 So.2d 273 (1945)) and video taped statements (see State v. Hall, 253 La. 425, 218 So.2d 320 (1969)). * * *' 310 So.2d at Neither does State v. Bendo, 281 So.2d 106 (La.1973), stand for the proposition that oral inculpatory ......
-
State v. Anderson, 49643
...is entitled only to the production of written or video-taped confessions. State v. Crook, 253 La. 961, 221 So.2d 473; State v. Hall, 253 La. 425, 218 So.2d 320; State v. Dorsey, 207 La. 927, 938, 22 So.2d In the instant case, there were no video-taped confessions and the State furnished to ......
-
State v. Nix
...298 So.2d 814 (La.1974); State v. Sears, 298 So.2d 814 (La.1974); State v. Daniels, 262 La. 475, 263 So.2d 859 (1972); State v. Hall, 253 La. 425, 218 So.2d 320 (1969). The trial court correctly applied to this case the law as it existed in These bills are without merit. BILL OF EXCEPTIONS ......
-
State v. Edgecombe
...to this rule has been made in instances where the State has in its possession a written confession of the accused.' Cf. State v. Hall, 253 La. 425, 218 So.2d 320.' State v. Clack, 254 La. 61, 222 So.2d 857 (1969). See, State v. Migliore, 261 La. 722, 260 So.2d The record discloses that ther......