Case Title: State v. LeBlanc

Citation: 297 So. 2d 433

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1974-07-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
297 So. 2d 433 (1974) STATE of Louisiana v. Larry LeBLANC. No. 54558. Supreme Court of Louisiana. July 1, 1974. *434 Murphy W. Bell, Director, Michael Cavanaugh, Trial Atty., Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant. William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie Brown, Dist. Atty., Bob H. Hester, Sp. Prosecutor, for plaintiff-appellee. DIXON, Justice. The defendant was tried under a bill of information charging him with attempted armed robbery. R.S. 14:64, R.S. 14:27. He was convicted after a trial by jury and sentenced to serve fifteen years at hard labor. He appeals, relying on two perfected bills of exceptions to obtain reversal of his conviction and sentence. Bill of Exceptions No. 1 During commission of this offense the complaining witness shot and wounded the perpetrator. On cross-examination defense counsel attempted to ask the witness, "Have you had any other occasions to use your gun?" The State objected on the ground that the question was irrelevant. The trial court sustained the objection and this bill was reserved. R.S. 15:275 provides: In State v. Davis, 259 La. 35, 249 So. 2d 193 (1971), where we found it was not error for a trial court to curtail cross-examination with regard to an act of violence unrelated to the crime before the bar, we said: We are unable to say that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit the question posed by defense counsel. This bill is without merit. Bill of Exceptions No. 2 This bill was reserved when the trial court refused a special written charge requested by the defendant after argument. The request was made after the prosecutor during rebuttal argument misstated the law with regard to the presumption arising from failure to call a witness under the control of a party. R.S. 15:432. In his per curiam the trial judge states the request was denied because it came too late and because it was contained in the general charge. C.Cr.P. 807 provides in part: We do not agree that the request came too late. Special charges may be received by the court in its discretion after argument. Where, as here, the necessity for the special charge arises after argument has begun it is an abuse of discretion to refuse such a charge on the ground it is not timely. The remainder of C.Cr.P. 807 provides: In the instant case the requested charge was partially covered by the general charge. The trial judge read R.S. 15:432 to the jury. Also, the special charge was not wholly correct, partially misstating the presumption. The bill does not present reversible error. For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.