Case Title: State v. Reinhardt

Citation: 229 La. 673, 86 So. 2d 530

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1956-02-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
86 So. 2d 530 (1956) 229 La. 673 STATE of Louisiana v. Herbert REINHARDT. No. 42633. Supreme Court of Louisiana. February 20, 1956. Rehearing Denied March 26, 1956. David A. Neuhauser, Milo B. Williams, New Orleans, for appellant. Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leon D. Hubert, Jr., Dist. Atty., James C. Garrison, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for appellee. MOISE, Justice. Herbert Reinhardt was charged in the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, in a Bill of Information, with having committed the crime of gambling as defined by LSA-Revised Statutes 14:90, in that he did unlawfully and intentionally conduct and directly assist in the conducting, as a business, at a location in the 2600 *531 block of Thalia Street, in the City of New Orleans, of a lottery, whereby a person risked the loss of a thing of value in order to realize a profit. The accused was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $350 and to serve six months in the parish prison, and he prosecutes this appeal from his conviction and sentence. The factual pattern of this case is that the accused was tried before a judge and not by a jury. Seven Bills of Exceptions were reserved during the course of the trial. Bills of Exceptions Nos. One, Two, and Three were reserved to the trial judge's permitting the offering in evidence of defendant's signature on an Appearance Bond in a previous prosecutionNo. 142-249 of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans. The State contends that the purpose of referring to the previous prosecution was to lay a predicate for the introduction of the Appearance Bond signed by the defendant in the earlier case as a basis for a handwriting comparison. Bill of Exceptions No. One was reserved to the ruling of the trial court admitting the testimony of Officer Felix Palmisano, who testified that he recognized the defendant and that the defendant was the same man against whom he had signed an affidavit in Case No. 142-249, supra. Defendant's counsel argues that this case does not fall within the enumerated exceptions provided for in LSA-Revised Statutes 15:445 and LSA-Revised Statutes 15:446, and that the evidence of another offense was inadmissible in the trial. These provisions of the LSA-Revised Statutes relate to prior crimes committed by a defendant and that such is admissible for the specific purpose of showing intent, knowledge or system. In State v. Wideman, 218 La. 860, 51 So. 2d 96, 99, we held: The following syllabus from the case of State v. Wales, 168 La. 322, 122 So. 52, 53, is germane to the issue here: In State v. Montgomery, 170 La. 203, 127 So. 601, 602, we held: In State v. Bryan, 175 La. 422, 143 So. 362, 367, we held: Also see, State v. Palmer, 227 La. 691, 80 So. 2d 374. We agree with the following holding made by the trial judge in his per curiam: Bill of Exceptions No. Two was reserved to the trial judge's permitting the introduction in evidence of the affidavit preferred against the defendant in Case No. 142-249, supra. Defendant contends that he did not put his reputation at issue and that there were no endorsements on the reverse side of the affidavit to show that he was ever prosecuted for the offense charged in Case No. 142-249, supra. The same reasoning urged in refusing Bill of Exceptions No. One is applicable to Bill of Exceptions No. Two. Bill of Exceptions No. Three was reserved to the trial judge's permitting the offering in evidence of an Appearance Bond filed in Case No. 142-249, supra. This Appearance Bond bore the signature of the accused, Herbert Reinhardt. Defendant's counsel contends that the signature on the Bond had not been identified as the signature of the defendant, Herbert Reinhardt. The Bond Clerk, John Costa, testified that all bonds were signed in front of him, and Officer Felix Palmisano testified that he recognized the defendant as the man against whom the affidavit had been preferred in Case No. 142-249, supra. The trial judge, who had to weigh the sufficiency of the evidence, declared that defendant's signature on the Appearance Bond filed in Case No. 142-249, supra, had been identified. We agree with him. *533 Bill of Exceptions No. Four was reserved to the trial judge's admitting in evidence certain lottery paraphernalia found by the police when they arrested the defendant for the offense set forth in the present Information. Defendant's counsel contends that the paraphernalia was not connected with the offense; that it was not identified as lottery paraphernalia; and that it was not actively or constructively connected with the defendant. The trial judge held that the paraphernalia was identified as lottery equipment by Lt. Joseph McDonald, who testified as an expert witness. With respect to defendant's contention that the paraphernalia was not connected with the offense charged, the learned trial judge made the following observation: See, also, Article 438, Code of Criminal Procedure; LSA-Revised Statutes 15:438. There is no merit in Bill of Exceptions No. Four. Bill of Exceptions No. Five was reserved to the trial judge's admitting in evidence an application for information as to whether the defendant purchased a wagering stamp from the United States Government; a letter from the United States *534 Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, New Orleans, Louisiana, stating that Herbert Reinhardt was the owner of a wagering stamp, which letter was written and certified to by D. F. Palmisano, Chief Returns Processing Branch; and a bill for $1 for the information furnished. It is the contention of defendant's counsel that the above documents were inadmissible, unless the authors thereof were produced to testify and be cross-examined. Section 6107 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A., provides: The letter, written by the Chief of the Returns Processing Branch stating that the defendant had paid a special tax for a wagering stamp covering the period of July 1, 1954 to June 30, 1955, inclusive, was properly certified to and bore the seal of the Internal Revenue Service of the United States Treasury Department. It was given as of public record and was proof that defendant possessed a wagering stamp. Further, we find the following statement in the record: LSA-Revised Statutes 15:422 provides: "Judicial cognizance is taken of the following matters: * * * LSA-Revised Statutes 15:457 provides: The request for the certified letter and the bill for $1.00 which followed showed a compliance with Section 6107 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, supra, and they were properly admitted in evidence. It is also to be noted that in admitting the evidence, the trial judge stated: See, State v. Wilson, 141 La. 404, 75 So. 95. The United States Supreme Court passed upon the admissibility of such documents in the case of Irvine v. People of State of California, 347 U.S. 128, 74 S. Ct. 381, 98 L. Ed. 561, and it stated: "Upon his arrest, petitioner had on his person a federal wagering tax stamp bearing his name, home address and the date, * * *. Against objection, it and other documentary evidence from the office of the United States Collector of Internal Revenue was received to show petitioner's application for the wagering tax stamp and his return to *535 the Collector under the federal law. These documents were made pursuant to the Federal Act imposing wagering taxes, 65 Stat. 529, 26 U.S.C. (Supp. V) section 3285 et seq., 26 U.S.C.A. § 3285 et seq., held constitutional by this Court in United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22, 73 S. Ct. 510, 97 L. Ed. 754. The claim is made that it was error as a matter of federal law to admit this evidence and also that payment of the federal tax resulted in a federal license to conduct the wagering business. This statute does not make such records or stamps confidential or privileged but, on the contrary, expressly requires the name and place of business of each such taxpayer to be made public. 53 Stat. 395, 26 U.S.C. § 3275, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3275. Petitioner's contentions are without substance or merit in view of the express provision of the statute that payment of the tax does not exempt any person from penalty or punishment by state law and does not authorize commencement or continuance of such business. * * *" The provisions of Article I, § 9, of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, LSA, which gives to an accused the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, does not extend to documentary evidence as submitted in the instant case. State v. Donato, 127 La. 393, 53 So. 662; State v. Hardy, 174 La. 458, 141 So. 27. Bill of Exceptions No. Five is without merit. Bill of Exceptions No. Six was reserved because the trial court exercised the right to examine the penciled writing and numbers on the lottery paraphernalia and found it to be the same as defendant Reinhardt's handwriting on the Appearance Bonds heretofore discussed. LSA-Revised Statutes 15:460, providing for the proof of documents other than authentic acts, reads: LSA-Revised Statutes 15:460.1 further provides: Since the case was tried by the judge he stands in the place of the jury, and the final decision as to whether the defendant was the writer of the lottery plays rested with him. Therefore, the trial judge did not assume any power not granted to him by law, and we find no merit in Bill of Exceptions No. Six. Bill of Exceptions No. Seven was taken to the trial judge's refusal to grant the defendant a new trial. In his motion for a new trial in the lower court, defendant's counsel incorporated all objections raised in the Bills of Exceptions. In a lengthy per curiam, the trial judge reaffirmed his previous rulings. Defendant's counsel argues in this Court that the conviction was had without any evidence establishing essentials of the offense chargednamely, "gambling as defined by R.S. 14:90". As stated in our discussions of the previous Bills of Exceptions, the record does contain evidence of the offense charged. Under Article 516 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, our appellate jurisdiction cannot be invoked to review the refusal to grant a new trial where there is no error of law. State v. Heiman, 227 La. 235, 79 So. 2d 78. This suit follows a well recognized *536 rule of evidence"Circumstantial variety, coupled with substantial unity, is the strongest kind of evidence." For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed. FOURNET, C. J., absent.