State v. Lee
| Decision Date | 04 January 1932 |
| Docket Number | 31472 |
| Citation | 173 La. 966,139 So. 302 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. LEE et al |
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans; J. Arthur Charbonnet, Judge.
Dave Lee and Manuel Acosta were convicted of robbery, a mistrial having been entered on the robbery charge against Sam Ficarro. From the conviction, the convicted defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
O'Connor & O'Connor and Charles V. Gonzales, all of New Orleans (Daly & Hamlin, of New Orleans, of counsel), for appellants.
Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., Eugene Stanley, Dist. Atty., and J Bernard Cocke, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of New Orleans, and E R. Schowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Dave Lee, Manuel Acosta, and Sam Ficarro were charged with robbery. Lee and Acosta were found guilty as charged and as to Sam Ficarro a mistrial was entered. The defendants convicted have appealed.
The first complaint is made to the overruling by the trial judge of appellants' motions, original and supplemental, for a bill of particulars and prayer for oyer.
The motions, in substance, ask that the state be required to inform appellants under what section of the Revised Statutes it was prosecuting them; the time of day and the manner in which the alleged crime was committed; and whether it would contend that appellants participated in the alleged crime as principals or as accessories.
The state answered that it was proceeding under section 809 of the Revised Statutes, the general robbery statute; and that it would contend on the trial of the case that all the defendants participated in the robbery as principals. The state declined to furnish the other particulars called for in the motions.
We do not think appellants' complaint is well-founded. The state furnished them with all the particulars to which they were entitled. It informed them that it was prosecuting them as principals and it pointed out the law on which the prosecution was based. Had appellants' request been granted by the trial judge, the state would have been forced to disclose its entire evidence in advance of the trial which it was not required to do. And appellants were not entitled to be informed as to the time of day the robbery occurred. State v. Fernandez, 157 La. 149, 102 So. 186; State v. Robertson, 158 La. 300, 103 So. 821.
Appellants' additional demand for oyer of all police reports and written statements of witnesses in possession of the state was properly denied by the trial judge.
The reports and statements called for were not public documents, but were the private property of the state.
The defendants did not disclose for what purpose they desired to use the documents, and it is manifest that in making their demand they were merely embarking upon a fishing expedition in the hope of discovering something in them that might prove useful to their defense.
The courts uniformly decline to grant an application for production and inspection where it is merely for the purpose of a fishing examination. State v. Simon, 131 La. 520, 59 So. 975. And the defendant in a criminal prosecution has no right of inspection of a private document in possession of the state, which is not offered in evidence. State v. Bankston, 165 La. 1082, 116 So. 565.
The second complaint is made to the overruling of defendants' objection to the testimony of two of the state's witnesses in rebuttal, on the grounds that it was not proper rebuttal testimony, and that the witnesses had violated the rule of separation under which all the witnesses had been put.
The witnesses in question, after they had been examined in chief, were extensively cross-examined as to alleged bootlegging transactions with the defendants. When the defendant Lee was examined in chief, he testified to various bootlegging transactions among himself, his codefendant Acosta, and the witnesses.
Appellants argue that the testimony was merely a repetition of a denial already made by the witnesses on their examination in chief; and that its main purpose was to impeach the testimony of the appellant Lee and to attack the general reputation of both appellants, when their general reputation had not been placed at issue.
But, as shown by the statements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Varnado
...So. 186, declded in 1924, and State v. Robertson, 158 La. 300, 103 So. 821, decided in 1925. Both cases were cited with approval in State v. Lee, 173 La. 966, loc.cit. 968, 139 So. 302, support of the following paragraph in State v. Lee: 'We do not think appellants' complaint is well-founde......
-
State v. Dallao
...so far as they were of a private nature, defendant was not entitled to their inspection until they were offered in evidence. State v. Lee, 173 La. 966, 139 So. 302. shown by the per curiam, whenever during the progress of the trial a request was made by any of the counsel representing defen......
-
State v. Haddad
...or the district attorney that we fail to understand why defense counsel continue to present such arguments to us on appeal. State v. Lee, 173 La. 966, 139 So. 302; State v. Dallao, 187 La. 392, 175 So. 4; State v. Williams, 211 La. 782, 30 So.2d 834; State v. Mattio, 212 La. 284, 31 So.2d 8......
-
State v. Monk
...on October 18, 1974 in State v. Jenkins, 302 So.2d 20 (La.1974).2 State v. Goodson, 116 La. 388, 40 So. 771 (1906).3 State v. Lee, 173 La. 966, 139 So. 302 (1932); See, State v. Hollingsworth, 292 So.2d 516 (La.1974).4 La.R.S. 14:64; State v. Hubbard, 279 So.2d 177 (La.1973); State v. Picke......