State v. Warren
| Decision Date | 09 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 52758,52758 |
| Citation | 271 So.2d 527 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Derrell D. WARREN. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
John W. King, Winnfield, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Reuel Boone, Dist. Atty., Thomas A. Self, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant, Derrell D. Warren, was charged by Grand Jury indictment with the crime of murder, La.R.S. 14:30. In a trial by jury he was found guilty of manslaughter, La.R.S. 14:31, and sentenced to fifteen years at the Louisiana State Penitentiary. Defendant relies on eight bills of exceptions reserved and perfected to obtain a reversal of his conviction and sentence.
Bill of Exceptions No. 1 was reserved at a hearing on an application for bail filed by the defendant. The state sought to introduce into evidence a typewritten statement signed by the coroner certifying the cause of death of the deceased. Defense counsel objected to the introduction of the statement on the grounds that no testimony had been taken from the coroner or any other person to identify it as being authentic.
We find that the introduction of the typewritten statement did not prejudice the defendant as far as the determination of his guilt or innocence at the trial. The statement was introduced at the hearing on the application for bail where the only issue to be decided was whether the defendant was entitled to bail. The matter would be viewed differently had the state sought to introduce this unverified typewritten statement at the trial in the presence of the jury. However, this bill was taken during a hearing on a preliminary motion for bail, the denial of which is not subject to appeal and counsel for the defendant did not seek remedial writs. The bill of exceptions is without merit.
Bill of Exceptions No. 2 was reserved by counsel for the defendant, but was not perfected. Therefore, we are unable to consider it.
Bill of Exceptions No. 3 was reserved when the trial court allowed the state to introduce into evidence two photographs of the scene of the crime. One photograph depicts the scene of the crime generally, while the other is a shot of the ground showing two empty .22 calibre cartridge cases. Counsel for the defendant objected to the introduction of the two photographs on the ground that too long a period of time had elapsed between the actual shooting and the discovery of the empty cartridges, and further for the reason that the scene of the shooting had not been placed under security.
We find that the objection of the defendant is without merit. It was not disputed at trial that the deceased died from gun-shot wounds inflicted by a .22 calibre weapon at the scene depicted in the photographs. It was for the jury to decide the weight to be given to the photograph depicting the empty cartridges; it was made clear to them that the photograph was not taken until some twelve to fourteen hours after the shooting took place. The defendant seems to argue that the state must show that the empty cartridges were Absolutely connected with the defendant. However, connexity is a matter for the jury to decide as long as the evidence is shown to have some relevance which the trial judge considers sufficient to warrant its introduction. State v. Wright, 254 La. 521, 225 So.2d 201 (1969); State v. Dillon, 260 La. 215, 255 So.2d 745 (1971); State v. Davis, 259 La. 35, 249 So.2d 193 (1971). The bill of exceptions lacks merit.
Bill of Exceptions No. 4 was reserved to the trial court's ruling that the empty .22 calibre cartridge cases mentioned above were admissible in evidence. The defendant objected to the introduction of this evidence on the same grounds mentioned in Bill of Exceptions No. 3, and for the reasons given there, we find this bill is likewise without merit.
Bill of Exceptions No. 5 was reserved when the trial court overruled defense counsel's objection to a re-cross examination by the state of one of the defendant's witnesses. The ground for the objection by defense counsel was that the re-cross examination touched upon matters not covered by the re-direct examination.
Although La.R.S. 15:281 seems to restrict the scope of re-cross examination to the new matter brought out on re-direct, we find that the defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's allowing the state to re-cross examine the witness under the circumstances presented here. There is no merit to this bill of exceptions.
Bill of Exceptions No. 6 was taken to the trial court's sustaining an objection made by the state to any testimony by Dr. Jack Grindle about his having treated the defendant previousl...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lee
...v. Houston, 316 So.2d 724 (La.1975); State v. Jackson, 308 So.2d 265 (La.1975); State v. Walker, 296 So.2d 310 (La.1974); State v. Warren, 271 So.2d 527 (La.1973); State v. Rollins, 271 So.2d 519 (La.1973); State v. Robinson, 263 La. 25, 267 So.2d 182 (1972); State v. Cannon, 231 La. 877, 9......
-
State v. Walker, 54380
...the bullet was not subjected to a ballistics test goes to the weight of the evidence. It does not affect the admissibility. State v. Warren, La., 271 So.2d 527 (1973); State v. Rollins, supra; State v. Brewer, 263 La. 113, 267 So.2d 541 (1972); State v. Anderson, In our opinion, the spent b......
-
State v. Brown
...not and would not return a capital verdict under any circumstances. See also State v. Richmond, La., 284 So.2d 317 (1973); State v. Warren, La., 271 So.2d 527 (1973); State v. Pratt, 255 La. 919, 233 So.2d 883 In any event, since the sentence imposed here was life imprisonment, no valid com......
-
State v. Shelby
... ... The white pillow case and the handkerchief were used in the crime and had been recovered at the scene. Except for the gym bag, all of the items were suffficiently linked to the crime to justify admission at trial. State v. Williams, 273 So.2d 280 (La.1973); State v. Warren, 271 So.2d 527 (1973); State v. Wright, 254 La. 521, 225 So.2d 201 (1969); State v. Stokes, 250 La. 277, 195 So.2d 267 (1967). The actual connexity of the items with the crime and the weight to be given to them was a matter ultimately for the jury. The introduction of the gym bag was without ... ...