Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Larry PRICE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1975-09-05
Citations: 325 So. 2d 780
Docket Number: No. 56143
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Larry PRICE.
Judges: SANDERS, C. J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 325
Pages: 780–787

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Larry PRICE.
No. 56143.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sept. 5, 1975.
On Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 1976.
William H. Byrnes, III, Elizabeth W. Cole, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
CALOGERO, Justice.
The pertinent issue in this case is whether the prosecutor's reference to a photograph of defendant as a "mug shot" was a direct or indirect reference to "another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is inadmissible," thus mandating a mistrial under the provisions of Article 770 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the trial of this armed robbery case, the prosecutor, while questioning a state witness in the presence of the jury about a photographic lineup, referred to defendant's photograph as a "mug shot." The sequence of occurrences under discussion at the time made it evident that the photograph of defendant was one taken prior to the commission of the offense for which he was being tried.
Defendant contends that the prosecutor's use of the term "mug shot" entitled him to a mistrial under Article 770, and that the trial judge's refusal to grant the requested mistrial constituted reversible error. Article 770 provides in pertinent part:
"Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the . . . district attorney . during the trial . . . refers directly or indirectly to:
(2) Another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible." (Emphasis provided)
Our law affords no discretion to the trial judge when a request for a mistrial is made under this provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The sole area of our concern is thus whether use of the term "mug shot" before a jury is an indirect reference to other crimes committed by or allegedly committed by defendant. This question is res nova. In State v. Jones, 283 So.2d 476 (La.1973), however, we noted that "mug shots" connote a criminal record and create a prejudicial effect upon the jury'. Jones was concerned with the actual introduction into evidence of the "mug shot" photographs themselves, but we believe that 'similar if not identical prejudice flows from the mere utterance of the term "mug shot," a term which to the layman means a police photograph taken of a person who has committed a crime or who is suspected of having committed a crime. Thus, we conclude that the use of the term "mug shot" before a jury is an indirect reference to another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant when it is used in circumstances which suggest that the photograph was made before the commission of the offense for which defendant is on trial.
The state alleges that the prosecutor in this case had used the term "mug shot" on several occasions earlier in the trial without objection by the defense attorney. They argue that the defendant had therefore waived his objection to the use of the term "mug shot." Were this a case where a defense attorney had without arguable explanation or extenuating circumstances repeatedly neglected to move for a mistrial notwithstanding repetitious impermissible use of the term by the prosecutor, we would perhaps be required to answer the state's argument and determine whether in that case the defendant's earlier failures to move for a mistrial under Art. 770 precludes his doing so thereafter. In the case at hand, however, we are unable to charge defense counsel with either repetitious neglect or a studied choice to permit the prosecutor's repeated use of the prejudicial reference.
The prosecutor's reference to "mug shot" appears in the transcript three times. The first time he used it was in his opening argument, a point in trial during which the state, to the knowledge of the jury, is presenting its contentions only. The second and third occasions which together prompted the defense attorney's motion for mistrial occurred in immediate succession.
Accordingly, defendant's conviction and sentence are reversed and the case is remanded for retrial.
SANDERS, C. J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., dissent.
. For a discussion of that issue, see Annotation, Mug Shots — Admissibility—Prejudice, 30 A.L.R.3d 908 (1970).
. The prosecutor's questioning of a state witness, during which the second and third references to "mug shot" were expressed by the district attorney, was as follows:
"Q. Were you shown mug shots of the defendant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many of them?
A. Six or eight. I can't tell you exactly. Six or eight.
Q. And, you picked the defendant out of the mug shots?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Prior to any lineup?
A. Yes, sir."
At this point the defense attorney asked that a mistrial be declared.