Case Title: State v. Moore

Citation: 344 So. 2d 973

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-04-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
344 So. 2d 973 (1977) STATE of Louisiana v. Darryl J. MOORE. No. 58662. Supreme Court of Louisiana. April 11, 1977. *975 Raleigh Newman, 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. DIXON, Justice. Darryl J. Moore was indicted on a charge of second-degree murder, a violation of R.S. 14:30.1, for the murder of Vicki Diane Nassar. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. A jury of twelve found him guilty as charged by a vote of ten to two. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for life, without eligibility for parole, probation or suspension of sentence for forty years. The defendant assigns seven errors for reversal of his conviction and sentence. Assignment of Error No. 6 was neither briefed nor argued and is thereby deemed abandoned. State v. Matthews, 292 So. 2d 226 (La.1974); State v. Edwards, 261 La. 1014, 261 So. 2d 649 (1972). On Sunday, November 30, (or December 7) 1975, the defendant and Danny Walter went to Houston, Texas to see Leroy Pattin to buy some marijuana. Pattin had arranged for the defendant to buy marijuana from a "connection," and the defendant and Walter met the "connection" and a number of other persons in a room in Houston to see the marijuana. Rather than buy the marijuana, however, the defendant exited the meeting and when the "connection" left, the defendant put a plastic gun to his head, stole two pounds of marijuana and $200 from him and then returned to Sulphur, Louisiana. Subsequently, the defendant learned that the "connection" and two other men were looking for him and that someone was going to "take care of" him. The defendant, fearful for his life, moved from his home in Sulphur and spent time at his parents' house in Vinton and Danny Walter's home in Orange, Texas. A few weeks later, while back in Sulphur picking up his belongings, the defendant saw Vicki Nassar. Vicki and her husband Nicki were also involved with trafficking in marijuana and one or both of them had apparently been in the room in Houston where the defendant stole the marijuana. Vicki indicated that she and her husband were breaking up. The defendant and Vicki arranged to meet Saturday night in front of the Vinton High School. However, after discussing the situation with Danny Walter, the defendant decided not to meet Vicki. Two days later, on Monday, February 2, 1976, the defendant and Danny Walter were driving around Sulphur when they again saw Vicki Nassar. She stopped her car and rolled down her window; the defendant pulled up next to her. They talked and Vicki asked where the defendant had been on Saturday night. The defendant replied that he didn't feel like being set up by her to which she replied, "They didn't see you there." At this point the defendant reached down between the console and the passenger seat where he had a .22 caliber magnum pistol. He pushed Danny Walter out of the way and fired three shots at Vicki Nassar, killing her. Following the State's opening statement, defense counsel requested the trial judge to issue instanter subpoenas directed to the State or the sheriff's department to furnish the defendant with a copy of the complaint relative to the shooting of Vicki Nassar, and all other complaints or affidavits which may have been filed against the defendant *976 which the State or the sheriff's office may have in their possession. The request also sought the issuance of a subpoena for the production of "rap sheets" on all of the State's witnesses who were not police officers. The trial judge ruled that the State was not required to furnish that information and therefore denied the motion. That denial forms the basis of Assignments of Error Nos. 1 and 2. As to the complaint regarding the shooting of Vicki Nassar, defense counsel did not indicate why he wanted the complaint at the time it was requested. There is no allegation nor showing that the defendant had inadequate notice of the crime with which he was charged, nor that he was in any way surprised. In addition, no prejudice to the defendant was alleged nor demonstrated. Therefore, the failure of the trial judge to issue the subpoena for this complaint does not constitute reversible error. C.Cr.P. 921. The defendant pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. In brief the defendant alleges that access to the other complaints against the defendant was necessary in order to inform the jury of specific instances of his antisocial behavior in the past to show that he was not in full control of his faculties and did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the offense. The defendant first made his requests for these complaints after trial had already begun. It thus appears that the complaints would not have been used in preparation for trial (i. e., to locate the complainants to have them testify at trial) but rather for use at trial itself. This is not a situation where the existence of the complaints is in question. Had the subpoena issued and the complaints produced, they would have been inadmissible at trial as hearsay. The defendant may have been entitled to this information if needed to prepare for trial, but the fact that the request was not made until the trial was under way demonstrates that this was not the purpose for which the documents were sought. Since the complaints themselves would have been inadmissible, no prejudice was suffered by the defendant as a result of the trial judge's ruling. The defendant's final request was for "rap sheets" on all prosecution witnesses other than police officers. Presumably the information contained in these sheets would have been used by the defendant to impeach the credibility of the State's witnesses. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not specifically authorize the issuance of "Instanter subpoenas." However, C.Cr.P. 732 provides: The Code of Criminal Procedure provides no time limit as to when such applications for subpoenas must be filed. Prudence would dictate however that when the need for documents exists and is known prior to trial that counsel file his application for the issuance of a subpoena at least prior to the commencement of trial. In this case the motion for issuance of the subpoenas was not made until after the State completed its opening statement. In addition, the record, as designated by the defendant, does not give a list of the State's witnesses nor any indication whether any of the witnesses in fact had criminal records. It is possible that defense counsel was able to impeach State witnesses through the use of prior convictions. Lastly, the defendant does not allege that he was prejudiced as a result of this ruling, nor is any prejudice discoverable in the record before us. Therefore, although a defendant might be entitled to those records if a proper and timely application for subpoena was filed, the action of the trial judge here did not constitute reversible error. During the trial the State sought to introduce the defendant's confession into *977 evidence. Defense counsel objected on the grounds that the confession was not freely and voluntarily given and that it contained evidence of other crimes which should be excluded. The defendant neither briefed nor argued the question of the voluntariness of the confession, and it is thereby deemed abandoned. State v. Matthews, supra; State v. Edwards, supra. The confession recounted the entire series of events that led up to Vicki Nassar's murder, including the robbery of the marijuana and $200 from the "connection" in Houston and an assault by the defendant on one of the persons who had been present at the meeting in Houston. The defendant contends that pursuant to R.S. 15:450 and the decisions of this court in State v. Snedecor, 294 So. 2d 207 (La.1974); State v. Fontenot, 292 So. 2d 194 (La.1974) and State v. Haynes, 291 So. 2d 771 (La.1974), the trial judge should have deleted that portion of the confession that made reference to other offenses and only permitted the introduction of that portion of the confession dealing with the murder of Vicki Nassar. The relevant portion of the trial judge's per curiam to this assignment reads as follows: We are in agreement with the trial judge. The defendant pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The events in Houston prior to the murder demonstrate the defendant's motive for shooting Mrs. Nassar. The chain of events leading up to this crime (including the references to the "other offenses") are relevant to explain the crime charged. It would be impossible to delete a portion of the confession without significantly altering its meaning. Therefore, since the confession was voluntarily given and the portions objected to by the defendant were independently relevant to explain the crime charged, the trial judge did not err in permitting the introduction of the entire confession. Cf. State v. Scott, 320 So. 2d 538 (La.1975); State v. Hollingsworth, 337 So. 2d 461 (La.1976). The defense called Dr. James A. Brown as a witness. Defense counsel questioned him as to his qualifications, background and training and then tendered him as an expert witness in the field of neurosurgery. The State then traversed the witness on his qualifications. The State also questioned the witness on his expertise in other fields of medicine. It is this second line of questioning by the State that the defendant contends was improper and an impermissible means by which to discredit this witness. As the defendant points out, the witness was only tendered as an expert in the field of neurosurgery and defense counsel stipulated that he was not being offered as an expert in psychiatry or any other field. However, the witness also testified on direct examination that he had practiced and combined the fields of psychiatry, neurology and neurosurgery, had done a residency in orthopedic surgery and had subsequently done work in orthopedics. Clearly the prosecutor was entitled to question the witness concerning his qualifications; since the witness had indicated that he had expertise in other areas, questions concerning those areas were not improper. The scope of examination of witnesses is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and his rulings will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Calloway, 324 So. 2d 801 (La. 1976); State v. Fulmer, 263 La. 971, 270 So. 2d 116 (1972). There was no abuse of discretion here. The State presented its case in chief and rested, after which the defense presented its evidence. The State then offered its rebuttal evidence and rested. At this point the defense requested the privilege of introducing rebuttal evidence on the issue of temporary insanity. The trial judge denied the motion and the defendant assigns that denial as error. The normal order of trial in criminal cases is set out in C.Cr.P. 765 which provides: While there is no provision for rebuttal by the defendant, number (5) of the above quoted article authorizes the trial judge, in his discretion, to permit the introduction of additional evidence after the case has been presented by the State and the defense. The only reason defense counsel offered in support of his motion was that since the defendant has the burden of proof in establishing the defense of insanity, he should be entitled to rebuttal after the State offers evidence to refute that defense. The defendant did not outline what evidence he sought to adduce. In addition, he has not alleged that he was prejudiced, nor is any prejudice demonstrated in the record. Under these circumstances the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant's motion. After the trial judge had charged the jury and the jurors had retired to deliberate, defense counsel objected to the jury charge on the ground that the jurors could have become confused as to the defendant's burden of proof on his defense of insanity. Specifically, the defendant contends that the wording of the charge may have led the jurors to believe that the defendant must establish the defense of insanity by "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than by a "preponderance of the evidence." The portion of the charge that defense counsel found objectionable is as follows: However, the part of the charge dealing with the defendant's burden of proof immediately preceded the portion attacked, so that the entire section of the charge provided: The charge is not incorrect and needed no clarification. This assignment has no merit. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the defendant are affirmed. SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., concur in decree.