State v. Hurst
| Decision Date | 18 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 50630,50630 |
| Citation | 257 La. 595,243 So.2d 269 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas HURST and Larry Lee Boudoin. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Benjamin E. Smith, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendants, Thomas Hurst and Larry Lee Boudoin, were charged in an information with armed robbery at Fatso's Bar in New Orleans, Louisiana, on October 27, 1968, and are appealing from their convictions and sentences thereunder to serve 50 years each. They received the same sentences, which are to run concurrently, in the case of State v. Boudoin and Hurst, 257 La. 595, 243 So.2d 269. The cases were argued together in this court.
During the course of the trial 14 bills were reserved. Apparently Bills Nos. 1, 7, 8, and 11 have been abandoned, as they were neither argued nor briefed in this court. We have, nevertheless, reviewed them and find they present no merit.
The other bills (Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14) are all levelled, directly or indirectly, at the only argument made in this court, that is, that the rights of defendants were violated by rulings of the trial judge that permitted reference to or evidence of other armed robberies perpetrated by these same defendants that would tend to prove intent, system or knowledge on their part.
It seems there was a series of five robberies at small bars or taverns in the same general locality in New Orleans in the early morning hours within a period of some three weeks in October 1968, the description of the two men involved in each of these robberies and their method of operation being similar. The robbery at Fatso's Bar, the crime with which defendants are charged in this case, was the last in the series and the first tried. Shortly after its commission, the defendants were apprehended and evidence connected with the robbery at Fatso's Bar, as well as some of the prior robberies, was found in their possession.
The ten bills now relied on were reserved when the prosecuting attorney made reference to the previous robberies in his opening statement; when some of the witnesses for the state were questioned with respect to these robberies, including one of the defendants while under cross-examination; and when the state sought to introduce the evidence found in the possession of defendants at the time they were apprehended following the robbery at Fatso's Bar. In the lower court no legal reason was given for such objections, and the statement contained in the bills themselves is merely that in objecting defense counsel was seeking to 'exclude all reference or evidence to proof, system and intent.'
In brief and argument in this court defense counsel recognizes that while evidence of other crimes, even those similar in nature, is not admissible to prove the offense charged, an exception to this rule permits restricted admission of such evidence where it is to show intent when intent is a necessary element of the crime, or to show motive. However, he contends such evidence was inadmissible here since intent and motive were never an issue in the case. He contends, further, that this exception has never been extended to permit the introduction of evidence for any other purpose than to establish intent and motive, citing Bush v. United States, 9 Cir., 167 F.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Atkins
......den. 283 Ala. 713, 220 So.2d 868 (Sup.Ct.1969), cert. den. . Page 565 . 396 U.S. 831, 90 S.Ct. 84, 24 L.Ed.2d 82 (1969); People v. Williams, 6 Cal.2d 500, 58 P.2d 917 (Sup.Ct.1936); State v. Addison, 249 Iowa 905, 87 N.W.2d 916 (Sup.Ct.1958); State v. Hurst, 257 La. 595, 243 So.2d 269 (Sup.Ct.1971); State v. Klotter, 274 Minn. 58, 142 N.W.2d 568 (Sup.Ct.1966); State v. Martin, 91 Abs. 147, 191 N.E.2d 581 (Ohio Ct.App.1961); see United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 677-678, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 1914, 44 L.Ed.2d 489, 503-504 (1975). . To ......
-
State v. Isaac
...... See State v. Spencer, 257 La. 672, 243 So.2d 793 (1971); State v. Montegut, 257 La. 670, 243 So.2d 793 (1971); State v. Montegut, 257 La. 665, 243 So.2d 791 (1971); State v. Hurst, 257 La. 595, 243 So.2d 269 (1971); State v. Welch, 250 La. 719, 198 So.2d 902 (1967). Defendant's theft of the revolver from a parked automobile a few hours before the [261 La. 497] armed robbery, in which the weapon was alegedly used, is proper evidence of guilty knowledge and ......
-
State v. Boudoin
.... Page 265. 243 So.2d 265. 257 La. 583. STATE of Louisiana. v. Larry Lee BOUDOIN and Thomas Hurst. No. 50561. Supreme Court of Louisiana. Jan. 18, 1971. [257 La. 586] . Page 266. Benjamin E. Smith, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. ......
-
State v. Spencer, 50537
...... See 42 A.L.R.2d 854--890; 40--48 A.L.R.2d L.C.A. 240. This court has also held such evidence admissible. See State v. Welch, 250 La. 719, 198 So.2d 902; State v. Hurst, 257 La. 595, 243 So.2d 269; State v. Montegut, 257 La. 665, 243 So.2d 791, and State v. Montegut, 257 La. 670, 243 So.2d 793, all decided this day. As previously noted, the defendant employed the exact method and plan of operation in later committing another robbery of the same ......