State v. Owens, 54893
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
| Writing for the Court | SANDERS; DIXON |
| Citation | 301 So.2d 591 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Lawton OWENS. |
| Docket Number | No. 54893,54893 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1974 |
Page 591
v.
Lawton OWENS.
Page 592
Murphy W. Bell, Director, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty., M. Stephen Roberts, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
SANDERS, Chief Justice.
The State charged the defendant, Lawton Owens, with attempted armed robbery. After trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The trial judge sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for a term of 20 years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The defendant appeals, relying upon two bills of exceptions.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NO. 1
The defense reserved the first bill of exceptions after the court allowed the State to question the defendant as to whether or not he was a homosexual. He replied that he was not.
Defense counsel asserts that the testimony was irrelevant and had no probative value.
As a guideline for the determination of relevancy, LSA-R.S. 15:441 provides:
'Relevant evidence is that tending to show the commission of the offense and the intent, or tending to negative the commission of the offense and the intent.
'Facts necessary to be known to explain a relevant fact, or which support
Page 593
an inference raised by such fact, are admissible.'The trial judge is vested with wide discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence. His ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Pierre, 261 La. 42, 259 So.2d 6 (1972); State v. Davis, 259 La. 35, 249 So.2d 193 (1971); State v. Lacoste, 256 La. 697, 237 So.2d 871 (1970).
In the instant case, the defendant testified on direct examination that he met the victim at a 'homosexual' bar and that the victim proposed homosexual relations. The defendant agreed to the proposal and left with the victim in the latter's automobile. The defendant further testified that after the car was parked, he learned that the victim would not pay him for engaging in homosexuality and he left the automobile. Whereupon, the victim shot at him, and he returned shots in self-defense. Defendant denied any intention to rob the victim.
From this brief review of defendant's testimony, it is apparent that defendant's homosexuality became relevant. It was factually interrelated with the defense. Hence, it was a proper subject for the State's cross-examination. Moreover, the defense cannot be heard to complain about inquiries on cross-examination pertaining to the subject matter of the direct examination. LSA-R.S. 15:495; State v. Prather, La., 290 So.2d 840 (1974);...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Drew, 61121
...v. King, 355 So.2d 1305 (La.1978); State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La.1977); State v. George, 346 So.2d 694 (La.1977); State v. Owens, 301 So.2d 591 (La.1974); State v. Ackal, 290 So.2d 882 (La.1974). In the instant case, testimony at trial linked each of the items introduced in evidence ......
-
State v. George, 59047
...of evidence, and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Owens, 301 So.2d 591 (La.1974); State v. Ackal, 290 So.2d 882 (La.1974). Whatever defendant's reasons may have been for possessing a firearm prior to the date of th......
-
State v. King, s. 60732 and 60733
...showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La.1977); State v. George, 346 So.2d 694 (La.1977); State v. Owens, 301 So.2d 591 (La.1974); State v. Ackal, 290 So.2d 882 (La.1974). In the instant case, the testimony of Deputy Fuselier that he had seen defendant and Pichle......
-
State v. Taylor, 58915
...any testimony also lies within the discretion vested in the trial judge. State v. Nero, La., 319 So.2d 303 (1975); State v. Owens, La., 301 So.2d 591 (1974). See LSA-R.S. 15:435, The similarity between the remissive psychotic condition of another person and the defendant's mental disease is......