Case Title: State v. Jones

Citation: 186 So. 2d 608, 249 La. 324

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1966-05-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
186 So. 2d 608 (1966) 249 La. 324 STATE of Louisiana v. Lloyd JONES et al. No. 48007. Supreme Court of Louisiana. May 2, 1966. Harley B. Howcott, Jr., Rudolph F. Becker, III, New Orleans, for appellants. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty., Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee. HAMLIN, Justice: Defendants were jointly charged by Bill of Information with having robbed one Sylvia Mathieu of $100.00 (a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:64). They were tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve fifteen years at hard labor in the Louisiana State Penitentiary. On appeal to this Court, defendants present for our consideration two Bills of Exceptions concerning the same subject matter. Prior to trial, counsel for the defendants filed a Prayer for Oyer, in which was incorporated a request for a list of the witnesses the State intended to use at the trial. Also prior to trial, counsel filed an Application for a Bill of Particulars and incorporated therein a request for the names of witnesses who identified either and/or both of the defendants. In answer to the Prayer for Oyer, the State listed the names of ten prospective *609 witnesses, one of whom was the instant victim. In answer to the Application for a Bill of Particulars, it listed only the name of the victim. During the course of trial, the State adduced the testimony of Lee Jones, Walter Dagges and Lawrence Bailey, who were allegedly present at the time the instant offense was committed. The names of these witnesses were not set forth in the Answer to the Prayer for Oyer nor in the Answer to the Application for a Bill of Particulars. Prior to the calling of the first of the above three witnesses to the stand, counsel for the defendants objected to their testifying on the ground that the State was precluded from offering their testimony because the Answer to the Prayer for Oyer did not include their names. Counsel contended that the answer of the State had been noted by them as satisfactory and that the State was bound and restricted thereby. The trial court overruled their objection. Bill of Exceptions No. 1 was reserved, and in addition to the above contentions counsel for the defendants urge that: In this Court, counsel for the appellants argue that in preparing for the trial of the defendants, they relied on the list of witnesses set forth in the Answer to the Prayer for Oyer and were led to believe that the ten persons listed would be the State's only witnesses. They urge that had the State not voluntarily listed the names of the witnesses it intended to use at the trial of the accused, or had counsel known that this list was not complete, then in all likelihood, they would have been forced to prepare for trial in an entirely different manner. Counsel state that they were very much surprised when Lee Jones was called to testify and were, therefore, unprepared to rebut his testimony, as well as the testimony of Lawrence Bailey and Walter Dagges, to the best interest of the appellants. Counsel for the defendants admit that they were not entitled to have a list of the State's witnesses. Such admission is in accordance with our jurisprudence. State v. Daspit, 129 La. 752, 56 So. 661; State v. Bailey, 233 La. 40, 96 So. 2d 34, 69 A.L.R.2d 340; State v. Goins, 232 La. 238, 94 So. 2d 244; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 949, p. 778; 19 La.L.Rev. 426. The minutes of court recite: The affidavit, which was available to counsel for the defendants, listed the names of the three alleged objectionable witnesses below the ten names previously furnished defendants. Albeit the record does not disclose when the names were added, it does reveal that they were listed prior to trial, as will be hereinafter shown. *610 Since the District Attorney, in his opening statement, was not required to give in minute detail all the evidence he intended to introduce or the name of each witness he proposed to place on the stand (State v. Goins, 232 La. 238, 94 So.2d 244), and since counsel for the defendants were not aware that the three alleged objectionable witnesses were to testify, counsel should have moved for a continuance when Lee Jones was called to the stand. The granting or refusing of a motion for a continuance is within the discretion of the trial judge (State v. Gardner, 169 La. 1011, 126 So. 510; State v. Ganey, 246 La. 986, 169 So.2d 73), but without a motion having been filed herein we are constrained to find that these defendants suffered no prejudice. The trial judge did not err in overruling the motion to exclude the testimony of the three alleged objectionable witnesses. His Per Curiam explains the events which took place when Bill of Exceptions No. 1 was reserved and the reasons for his ruling. We quote the following pertinent parts thereof: "* * * Bill of Exceptions No. 1 is without merit. *611 Bill of Exceptions No. 2 was reserved when the trial judge overruled defendants' motion for a new trial. Incorporated in Bill of Exceptions No. 2 are the same allegations contained in Bill of Exceptions No. 1. We find Bill of Exceptions No. 2 without merit. For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed. HAWTHORNE, J., concurs in the decree.