State v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 07 January 1935 |
| Docket Number | 33012 |
| Citation | 181 La. 135,158 So. 820 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. MITCHELL |
Appeal from Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Ouachita; D I. Garrett, Judge.
Sidney Mitchell was convicted of having stolen property in his possession knowing that it was stolen, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Thompson & Dorman, of Monroe, for appellant.
Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O'Connor, Asst. Atty Gen., Frank W. Hawthorne, Dist. Atty., of Bastrop, George W Lester, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Monroe, and Lessley P. Gardiner, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for the State.
O'NIELL, Chief Justice.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of having stolen property in his possession, knowing that it was stolen. He relies upon two bills of exception.
The first bill has reference to the opening statement made by the district attorney to the jury. The objection was that the district attorney said that he intended to prove that a deputy sheriff found in the defendant's home "dresses, trousers and shoes" which were stolen from a railroad company; the indictment charging only that the defendant had in his possession 48 pairs of shoes which he knew were stolen from the railroad company.
In his opening statement to the jury, a district attorney should refer, of course, only to facts which are relevant to the accusation against the defendant; and, as a general rule evidence tending to prove that the defendant committed another crime than that for which he is on trial is irrelevant and inadmissible. But there are exceptions to the rule, and, when the evidence falls within an exception to the rule, it is admissible, notwithstanding its prejudicial effect. There is nothing in this record to show that the evidence that the defendant had stolen dresses and trousers in his possession, as well as the 48 pairs of stolen shoes, all of which property was stolen from the same party, was inadmissible. On the contrary, the defendant admitted in his confession, which is in the record, that the party who brought him the 48 pairs of shoes brought also 6 or 7 dresses. As to the trousers, an objection was made to the testimony of the deputy sheriff that he found the trousers and other stolen property on the defendant's premises, on the day after he found the 48 pairs of shoes; but the bill of exceptions which was reserved to the overruling of that objection was expressly and formally abandoned. Our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Palmer
...v. Comeaux, 171 La. 327, 131 So. 36; State v. Jones, 174 La. 1074, 142 So. 693; State v. Bryan, 175 La. 422, 143 So. 362; State v. Mitchell, 181 La. 135, 158 So. 820; State v. Cupit, 189 La. 509, 179 So. 837; State v. Rives, 193 La. 186, 190 So. 374; State v. Guillory, Under our LSA-Revised......
-
State v. Guillory
...Norphlis, 165 La. 893, 116 So. 374; State v. Jones, 174 La. 1074, 142 So. 693; State v. Bryan, 175 La. 422, 143 So. 362; State v. Mitchell, 181 La. 135, 158 So. 820; State Cupit, 189 La. 509, 179 So. 837; State v. Rives, 193 La. 186, 190 So. 374. And under the express provisions of the Code......
- Mariana v. Eureka Homestead Soc
-
State v. Meharg
... ... It is so stated ... in State v. Bates, et al., supra ... The ... general rule as to the admissibility of the commission of ... other crimes is clearly set forth in the case of State v ... Bay, 148 La. 559, 87 So. 294 ... In ... State v. Mitchell, 181 La. 135, 158 So. 820, it was ... said: "As a general rule, evidence tending to prove that ... the defendant committed another crime than that for which he ... was on trial is irrelevent and inadmissible. But there are ... exceptions to the rule, and, when the evidence falls within ... an ... ...