State v. Johnson

Decision Date23 February 1976
Docket NumberNo. 57063,57063
CitationState v. Johnson, 327 So.2d 388 (La. 1976)
PartiesSTATE of Louisiana v. Nathaniel JOHNSON.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Vincent Wilkins, Jr., Director, Roland T. Huson, III, Appellate Counsel, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty., James E. Boren, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

DIXON, Justice.

The defendant, Nathaniel Johnson, was charged by bill of information, dated July 16, 1974, with the crime of armed robbery, in violation of R.S. 14:64.After a jury trial, he was convicted and subsequently sentenced to fifty years imprisonment.Five assignments of error were presented to the trial court; however, two were neither briefed nor argued on appeal, and are therefore deemed abandoned.State v. Carlisle, 315 So.2d 675(La.1975).

Assignment of Error No. 1

The defendant's first assigned error relates to a line-up identification of the defendant by one of the victims of the robbery and that victim's subsequent in-court identification.Specifically, the defendant alleges that the trial judge erred in allowing the victim of the robbery to identify him at trial because (1) the line-up at which she had earlier identified the defendant was so impermissibly suggestive that it tainted any subsequent identification and (2)he was without benefit of counsel at the line-up.

The defendant's evidence that the line-up was impermissibly suggestive is minimal.The defendant chose those who were to stand with him, as well as the order in which they were to stand.The defendant contends the line-up was suggestive because he had some writing on his pants, while the others did not.A review of the photograph taken of the line-up reveals that another person in the line-up had drawings of some sort on his pants leg.All of the participants were of a similar height and weight, wore the same type of prison clothing and had on similar colored shoes.The record does not support the defendant's contention that this line-up was impermissibly suggestive.State v. Payton, 294 So.2d 211(La.1974).

Nor does the absence of counsel at the line-up violate the defendant's constitutional rights.The line-up took place before the bill of information was filed.In Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411(1972), the United States Supreme Court held that there is no right to counsel at preindictment line-ups.SeeState v. Johnson, 306 So.2d 724(La.1975).

The defendant also contends that he is entitled to counsel at the line-up under the provisions of Article 1, § 13 of the Louisiana Constitution.That article provides:

'When any person has been arrested or detained in connection with the investigation or commission of any offense, he shall be advised fully of the reason for his arrest or detention, his right to remain silent, his right against self incrimination, his right to the assistance of counsel and, if indigent, his right to court appointed counsel.In a criminal prosecution, an accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.At each stage of the proceedings, every person is entitled to assistance of counsel of his choice, or appointed by the court if he is indigent and charged with an offense punishable by imprisonment.The legislature shall provide for a uniform system for securing and compensating qualified counsel for indigents.'

We cannot agree with the defendant's contention.A preindictment line-up is not a 'stage of the proceedings' at which defendant is entitled to counsel.C.Cr.P. 382;La.Const. art. 1, § 15(1974).

Assignment of Error No. 1 is without merit.

Assignment of ErrorsNos. 2 and 3

The defendant contends that the trial judge erred in failing to suppress a tape recorded confession.The basis of defendant's claim is that he did not make an intelligent and knowing waiver of his...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
15 cases
  • State v. Hattaway
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1993
    ...v. Cotton, 341 So.2d 355 (La.1977); State v. Lawrence, 294 So.2d 476 (La.1974); State v. Taylor, 347 So.2d 172 (La.1977); State v. Johnson, 327 So.2d 388 (La.1976); State v. Rudolph, 332 So.2d 806 (La.1976); State v. Stewart, 325 So.2d 819 (La.1976); State v. Johnson, 306 So.2d 724 (La.1975......
  • State v. Johnson, 16
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1982
    ...v. Jimenez, 21 Cal.3d 595, 147 Cal.Rptr. 172, 580 P.2d 672 (1978); Magley v. State, 263 Ind. 618, 335 N.E.2d 811 (1975); State v. Johnson, 327 So.2d 388 (La.1976); State v. Tardiff, 374 A.2d 598 (Me.1977); Younger v. State, 301 So.2d 300 (Miss.1974); State v. Phinney, 117 N.H. 145, 370 A.2d......
  • State v. Delahunt
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1979
    ...the state courts that have considered the issue have followed Kirby. See, e. g., State v. Malani, 578 P.2d 236 (Haw.1978); State v. Johnson, 327 So.2d 388 (La.1976); State v. Easthope, 29 Utah 2d 400, 510 P.2d 933 (1973). See also cases collected at 46 U.Mo.K.C.L.Rev. 148, 152 n. 35 Our Rho......
  • State v. Nicholas
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1981
    ...is needed to prove that probable cause exists for the arrest than is the case when the police know a crime has been committed. State v. Johnson, supra." 378 So.2d at Furthermore, the owner of Smokey's had not confined his report to the passing brown car but had indicated generally to Difris......
  • Get Started for Free