State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 09 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 52855,52855 |
| Citation | 271 So.2d 857 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas Willie WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
John J. Dolan, 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.
The defendant, Thomas Willie Williams, was found guilty of the crime of aggravated rape, La.R.S. 14:42, in a trial by jury, and sentenced to serve life imprisonment at the Louisiana State Penitentiary. On this appeal, the defendant relies on six bills of exceptions reserved and perfected during the trial in order to obtain a reversal of his conviction and sentence.
Bill of Exceptions No. 1 was reserved to the trial court's ruling denying defendant's motion for a continuance. The motion was made on the grounds that the defendant's witnesses had not appeared for the trial. However, subsequent to the filing of the objection to the court's ruling and just prior to the calling of the prospective jurors, the defense witnesses made their appearances. Therefore, this bill reserved on behalf of the defendant is moot.
Bill of Exceptions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were all reserved when the prosecution was allowed to introduce into evidence nineteen exhibits consisting of items found at the scene of the rape and evidence cards to identify the items. The defendant objected to the introduction of the evidence, on the ground that the state failed to show the necessary 'chain of evidence' to link the evidence with the crime.
We find that the evidence was properly admitted by the trial court. All of the exhibits were recovered by the police officers at the scene of the rape, and identified by the victim of the rape. The criminologist who performed tests on the items definitely established the necessary 'chain of evidence' to allow their introduction. (R--63--76). Furthermore, the record reflects that the state had at one time during the trial offered these exhibits (with the exception of S--10) and they were introduced without objected from defense counsel. However, the state re-offered the exhibits later in the trial and at this time counsel for the defendant saw fit to object. Under these circumstances the items objected to were already in evidence at the time of the objection. Therefore, we find that the bill of exceptions is without merit.
Bill of Exceptions No. 5 was reserved to the trial court's overruling an objection to the state's introduction of a statement made by the defendant to police officers. The statement was introduced during the rebuttal testimony of Officer Errol Taylor, for the purpose of impeaching testimony given by the defendant when he took the stand. The defense counsel objected to the introduction of the statement on the grounds that it was not shown that the Miranda warnings were given the defendant prior to his making the statement.
We find there was sufficient testimony of the officer in the state's case in chief for the trial court to conclude that the Miranda warnings were given to the defendant prior to his making the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barnard
...though she had deliberately ignored the sequestration rule, and had been in court since the beginning of the trial. And in State v. Williams, 271 So.2d 857 (La.1973), the State's witness was permitted to testify even though she had heard the testimony of other witnesses, because the court f......
-
State v. Harvey
... ... State v. Gilmore, supra; State v. Williams, 343 So.2d 1026 (La.1977). Consequently, these assignments present a serious question, but not reversible error ... ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 BY ATWELL ... In this assignment, defendant Atwell argues that the trial court should have quashed the indictment which charged him ... ...
-
State v. Goodmon
...N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1981); State v. Robinson, 4 Kan.App.2d 428, 608 P.2d 1014 (1980); State v. Kent, 371 So.2d 1319 (La.1979); State v. Williams, 271 So.2d 857 (La.1973); State v. Melvin, 390 A.2d 1024 (Me.1978); State v. Myers, 345 A.2d 500 (Me.1975); Harris v. State, 286 Md. 444, 408 A.2d 13......
-
Com. v. Triplett
...284 N.E.2d 517 (1972); State v. Martin, Lowa, 217 N.W.2d 536 (1974); State v. Osbey, 213 Kan. 564, 517 P.2d 141 (1974); State v. Williams, La., 271 So.2d 857 (1973); State v. Gervais, Me., 317 A.2d 796 (1974); Sabatini v. State, 14 Md.App. 431, 287 A.2d 511 (1972); Commonwealth v. Harris, M......