State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 24 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 55353,55353 |
| Citation | 309 So.2d 303 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Albert WILLIAMS III. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Cecil R. Sanner, Lake Charles, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank T. Salter, Jr., Dist. Atty., James L. Babin, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant was charged by bill of information with simple burglary 1 in violation of La.R.S. 14:62. After trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty as charged. He was subsequently sentenced to 9 years at hard labor in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections.
Ten bills of exceptions were reserved during trial and were thereafter perfected. On appeal the defendant has abandoned bills of exceptions nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8, and relies solely upon the remaining four bills in urging reversal of his conviction.
Bills of Exceptions Nos. 3 and 10.
During cross-examination of the complaining witness, a 38 year old female and purported victim of the burglary, defense counsel asked if she had a juvenile record. The state objected to this inquiry, and the trial court sustained the objection. To this ruling, defendant reserved Bill of Exception No. 3.
After defendant's conviction, he moved for a new trial based on the ground that Bill of Exceptions No. 3 showed prejudicial error. To the denial of this motion, defendant reserved Bill of Exceptions No. 10. The two bills, relating to the same issue, have been consolidated for argument.
We find no merit in these bills of exceptions. At the hearing on defendant's motion for a new trial, the same witness testified that she had never been arrested or taken into custody by police or juvenile authorities. Accordingly, we can and do know that the trial court's preventing an answer to the question during trial did not deny the defendant a favorable response. He therefore suffered no prejudice from the trial court's ruling.
However, we think there is another basis upon which to rest our decision. Juvenile adjudications are not convictions, 2 and hence are not generally available for use in impeachment of a witness' credibility. 3
Defendant relies upon Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment must, in certain circumstances, predominate over state statutes protecting the confidentiality of a juvenile offender's record. But in Davis, the juvenile record of the state's witness was relevant to the defendant's effort to establish bias, prejudice or ulterior motive on the part of this witness who, at the time he incriminated Davis in a burglary, was himself on probation after having been adjudicated a delinquent for burglarizing two cabins, and thus, in his own mind at least, a possible suspect in the police investigation.
The instant case does not present as in Davis a confrontation problem. The witness here was 38 years old. Inquiry into her conduct a full twenty-one years previously could only have been, and in fact was, simply an attempt to impeach her general credibility by depicting her as a person with a questionable background. This was impermissible and was properly disallowed.
These bills have no merit.
This bill was reserved when the trial court overruled defendant's objection to the introduction of the following items into evidence:
The defendant presents two arguments in regard to this Bill of Exceptions.
Initially it is argued that a proper foundation was not laid by the State for the introduction of the exhibits. Specifically, it is argued that the State failed to establish how long the witness had been employed in the field of photography or if he had ever taken or developed photographs before.
We find no merit in this connection. The State's witness testified that he had taken the pictures and that they were developed and printed under his supervision. He stated that the photographs represented what he saw with his naked eye, and that the photographs had not been distorted, altered or changed in any manner. This was a sufficient foundation.
Defendant's second contention is that the best evidence rule required that the items themselves, specifically the aluminum screen and a couch depicted in S--5, be introduced into evidence.
The best evidence rule is contained in La.R.S. 15:436. That statute provides:
'The best evidence which from the nature of the case must be supposed to exist, and Which is within a party's control must be produced.' (emphasis provided)
The window screen and the couch were not items within the control of the state, and the state was not required to produce...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McSpaddin
...outlined above no error is presented which would warrant reversal. La.Code Crim.Pro. art. 921. Cf. La.Rev.Stat. 37:1284; State v. Williams, 309 So.2d 303 (La.1975). Assignment The defense called Anita Spell as a witness to testify to the circumstances surrounding the arrests of defendants. ......
-
State v. Dilworth
...v. McQueen, La., 278 So.2d 114 (1973), overruled on other grounds, State v. Searle, La., 339 So.2d 1194 (1976). See also State v. Williams, La., 309 So.2d 303 (1975). Assignment of Error No. 1 is without ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 In Assignment of Error No. 2, defendant complains of the tria......
-
Great American Ins. Co. v. St. James Parish Sheriff's Office
...The courts have approved of the substitution of photographs for the property itself under certain circumstances. In State v. Williams, 309 So.2d 303 (La.1975) the court denied the defendant's claim that an aluminum screen and a couch should have been introduced into evidence rather than pho......
-
State v. Thibodeaux
...it cost you any money to repair the vehicle? A. Yes. It did. A. About four ($400.00) or five hundred dollars ($500.00)." In State v. Williams, 309 So.2d 303 (La.1975), the defendant argued, under the best evidence rule, that a couch and aluminum window screen should be introduced into evide......