Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Gary SOUKUP
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1972-10-26
Citations: 275 So. 2d 179
Docket Number: No. 51977
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Gary SOUKUP.
Judges: DIXON, J., dissents as to Bills 3 & 4, being of the opinion that defendant was denied the right of confrontation.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 275
Pages: 179–184

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Gary SOUKUP.
No. 51977.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Oct. 26, 1972.
On Rehearing March 26, 1973.
Anthony J. Bruscato and Albert E. Loomis, III, Bruscato & Loomis, Monroe, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Carl Par-kerson, Dist. Atty., Gilbert T. Brown, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Gary Soukup, appeals his non-jury conviction of the possession of marijuana in violation of La.R.S. 40:962, for which he was sentenced to serve one year imprisonment in the Ouachita Parish Jail. The defendant relies upon six bills of exceptions to obtain a reversal.
The first bill of exceptions was taken to the trial judge's overruling defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence on the ground that the search warrant under which the narcotics were found and seized by the police at the defendant's private quarters at 1005 Cole Avenue was invalid as having been issued upon information and belief and without probable cause. We disagree. The information supplied by the anonymous informant was based upon his personal observation and purchase of narcotics. This information and evidence was the basis of the affidavit and search warrant. The requirements of probable cause for issuance of the search warrant have thus been met. La.C.Cr.P. art. 162; State v. Holmes, 254 La. 501, 225 So.2d 1 (1969); State v. Carey, 256 La. 990, 240 So.2d 733 (1970). As to defendant's -contention that the search warrant was invalid for want of particularity of description' of the premises because defendant occupied a separate residence therein, the record confirms that the premises described in the search warrant was a common dwelling and residence of three occupants, as was asserted in the affidavit, who had free access to all areas thereof.
Bill of Exceptions Nos. 2 and 6 both concern certain specific items of evidence gathered during the search, to wit: a coat (in which the marijuana gleanings were found) and two bottles of assorted pills. The defense objected to the introduction of the coat on the ground that no proof of defendant's ownership was adduced, and to the bottles of pills on the ground of irrelevancy. Later, on cross-examination, the defendant objected to questions concerning the coat and pills on the same grounds.
We find these arguments insubstantial. The bottles of pills were relevant to help identify the occupant of the room from which they were seized. Additionally, concerning the coat, we quote from the trial judge's per curiam,
"Although defendant later denied ownership or knowledge of it, another occupant of the house testified he had seen defendant wearing it; and it was observed to fit the defendant nicely when he was requested to put it on during the trial.".
Therefore the objection goes only to the weight and not to the admissability of this evidence. State v. Gladden, 260 La. 735, 257 So.2d 388 (1972).
Bills of Exceptions Nos. 3 and 4 both concern certain testimony of Ronald Sil-verman, who was present at the time of the search. Defendant Soukup was absent at the time of the search. The witness was called to the stand by the State for the apparent purpose of adducing additional evidence that Soukup occupied the specific bedroom and owned the coat. Upon refusal to do so, he was ordered by the Court to answer whether he knew where Soukup was living on the date of the search. Defendant objected that his cross-examination would be limited it the witness were forced to answer some questions but allowed to plead his privilege to others. Later, the same witness was not required to answer a question by defense counsel concerning Soukup's habits or frequency of absence from the common abode.
We agree with the following analysis of the trial judge:
"No information was given to the Court to demonstrate how the witness could possibly incriminate himself by stating where Soukup lived at a given time; and none was ever brought forth during the trial. However, once it was established that the house (in which the witness lived) was defendant's residence, then any revelation by the witness that indicated that Soukup was or had been frequently absent could well lead to the conclusion that the coat or the marijuana or both' were his property and thus incriminate him. In short, one answer could not possibly incriminate the witness, but the other might."
Inasmuch as the defendant has no standing to complain of rulings concerning the claim of constitutional rights by others, these bills are without merit. State v. Willis, 260 La. 439, 256 So.2d 436 (1972).
Bill of Exceptions No. 5 was reserved to the trial judge's denial of defendant's motion for a directed verdict. This Court has held that our State Constitution precluded consideration of such a motion. LSA-Const. Art. 19, Sec. 9; State v. Williams, 258 La. 801, 248 So.2d 295 (1971).
Bill of Exceptions No. 7 was reserved to the failure of the trial court to grant a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence. This contention, standing alone, presents nothing for this Court's review. C.Cr.P. Art. 858; State v. Kennedy, 225 La. 295, 230 So.2d 818 (1970).
For the reasons stated, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
DIXON, J., dissents as to Bills 3 & 4, being of the opinion that defendant was denied the right of confrontation.