Case Title: State v. Joseph

Citation: 379 So. 2d 1076

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-01-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
379 So. 2d 1076 (1980) STATE of Louisiana v. Andrew JOSEPH. No. 65198. Supreme Court of Louisiana. January 28, 1980. John M. Lawrence, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-respondent. William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Robert T. Myers, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-relator. WATSON, Justice. The State of Louisiana was granted a writ of review in this matter upon a representation that the trial court erred in ordering the State to answer interrogatory number 24 posed by counsel for defendant, Andrew Joseph. Interrogatory number 24 reads: The trial court's first ruling on this interrogatory was as follows: At a subsequent hearing on July 20, the trial court ruled that the defendant was entitled to a "non-exculpatory statement" (Tr. 1). The statement is not otherwise identified, but the parties agree in the *1077 briefs that the ruling relates to oral statements made by defendant to a private citizen. In the State's answer to defendant's interrogatory number 14, this individual is identified as Evan Butler, to whom defendant is alleged to have made oral, precustodial statements on October 13, 14, and 16, 1968. Apparently, the State complains of the ruling of July 20, because the original ruling on interrogatory 24 was favorable to the State. There is no representation that defendant is entitled to the material because it is of an exculpatory nature. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1976). Although some commentators advocate disclosure of all relevant evidence,[1] there is no constitutional requirement that the prosecution's complete case be revealed to the defendant. United States v. Agurs, supra; Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 92 S. Ct. 2562, 33 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1972). The issue is whether the State is required to divulge the contents of an oral inculpatory statement made by defendant to a private citizen when the State plans to use that evidence at trial.[2] LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 716 provides as follows: Defendant contends that he is entitled to the information under part A. of the above article while the State contends the contents of the statements are excluded under part B. The State's interpretation of the article is the correct one. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 723 states: Under LSA-C.Cr.P. arts. 716(B) and 723 the information sought is not subject to discovery by defendant. Defendant is not entitled to obtain the contents of an oral statement made by him to a private citizen, when the evidence is not of an exculpatory nature. See State v. Sheppard, 350 So. 2d 615 (La., 1977). The trial court erred insofar as it ordered the State to reveal to defendant the contents of any oral inculpatory statements made by him to Evan Butler. The ruling of the trial court is vacated insofar as it ordered the State to reveal to defendant the contents of any oral inculpatory statements made by defendant, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. ORDER VACATED: CASE REMANDED. [1] See, for example, the comment at 74 Yale Law Journal 136. [2] Its use at trial would require an affirmative showing by the State that the statement was free and voluntary. State v. Glover, 343 So. 2d 118 (La., 1977).