State v. Ranker
| Decision Date | 28 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 52488,52488 |
| Citation | 263 La. 914,269 So.2d 812 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Shelton RANKER. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Allen C. Hope, Jr., Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant, Shelton Ranker, appeals his conviction and fifteen year sentence for armed robbery of a newspaper carrier in the amount of twenty dollars. La.R.S. 14:64. Defendant perfected seven bills of exceptions. However, defense counsel expressly waives Bills of Exceptions Nos. 2 and 3, and submits Bills Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 without briefing or argument.
Bill of Exceptions No. 1 is based on the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress the identification of the defendant. It was brought out at the trial that the defendant was positively identified by four newscarriers, all victims of alleged offenses of armed robbery, after separate and isolated views of Ranker in the lineup. Mr. Jones, defendant's attorney at the lineup testified that he was satisfied the lineup was a legal one. We do not find any violation of the defendant's constitutional or legal rights in this regard. This bill has no merit.
Bill of Exceptions No. 4 was taken to the trial court's refusal to order the State to furnish the defendant with both a complete copy of the District Attorney's file and any supplemental information or evidence of an inculpatory or exculpatory nature being held by the New Orleans police department. At the outset, defense counsel concedes in his brief that the State was not obligated to furnish him with a copy of the district attorney's file. State v. Hunter, 250 La. 295, 195 So.2d 273 (1967). Neither must the State furnish the defense with information or evidence of an inculpatory nature. However, counsel contends it has a right to be supplied with information or evidence held by the law enforcement authorities which is exculpatory in nature. Specifically, defense counsel argues that the conviction should be reversed with instructions to the trial court to hold an In camera examination of the District Attorney's file to make a determination of whether there was any exculpatory evidence which should have been turned over to the defense as material to either guilt or innocence. He argues that to have allowed the District Attorney to make a determination, on his own as to what was exculpatory resulted in an unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority to the State. In actuality, these arguments greatly expanded the original bill of exceptions No. 4 taken by the defendant and are not properly before us. Essentially, Bill No. 4 was taken to the trial court's denial of defendant's motion, 'by Bill of Particulars, for a complete copy of the District Attorney's file as well as any supplemental information or evidence held by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nix
... ... 2562, 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972) ... Regarding defendants' request for a commission to review the state's files or an In camera review by the trial court (Bill No. 19) we have held that the law does not at present require such a procedure. State v. Major, supra; State v. Ranker, 263 La. 914, 269 So.2d 812 (1972) ... These bills are without merit ... BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NO. 20 ... When the trial court denied a defense motion for a continuance based on lack of time to prepare for trial, this bill was reserved ... Page 321 ... ...
-
State v. Edgecombe
...253 La. 653, 219 So.2d 484; State v. Daniels, 262 La. 475, 263 So.2d 859; State v. McLeod, 264 La. 239, 271 So.2d 45; State v. Ranker, 263 La. 914, 269 So.2d 812; State v. Brumfield, 263 La. 147, 267 So.2d 553; State v. Jones, La., 267 So.2d 559; State v. Anderson, 254 La. 1107, 229 So.2d 3......
-
State v. Linkletter
... ... State v. Nix, 327 So.2d 301 (La.1976), Cert. denied, Fulford v. Louisiana, 425 U.S. 594, 96 S.Ct. 1732, 48 L.Ed.2d 198 (1976); State v. Major, 318 So.2d 19 (La.1975); State v. Williams, 310 So.2d 528 (La.1975); State v. Ranker, 263 La. 914, 269 So.2d 812 (1972) ... These cases do not construe Brady v. Maryland to permit the defendant unlimited pretrial discovery. No fishing expedition is authorized by that decision and a pretrial in-camera inspection of the State's file is not required. However, the ... ...
-
State v. Boyd
...required; see, e. g., State v. Linkletter, 345 So.2d 452, 454 (La.1977); State v. Nix, 327 So.2d 301, 320 (La.1976); State v. Ranker, 263 La. 914, 269 So.2d 812 (1972), where the State denies possession of the information requested and the defendant makes no showing to contradict the State'......