Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Roosevelt KAUFMAN and Iley Dotch
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1972-12-11
Citations: 278 So. 2d 86
Docket Number: No. 51866
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Roosevelt KAUFMAN and Iley Dotch.
Judges: McCALEB, C. J., concurs in the decree.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 278
Pages: 86–99

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Roosevelt KAUFMAN and Iley Dotch.
No. 51866.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Dec. 11, 1972.
Dissenting Opinion Jan. 16, 1973.
On Rehearing May 7, 1973.
David W. Robinson, John Schwab, Watson, Blanche, Wilson, Posner & Thibaut, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellants.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Attys., Ralph L. Roy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
SUMMERS, Justice.
Roosevelt Kaufman and Hey Dotch were charged with murder (La.R.S. 14:30); they were jointly tried, convicted and sentenced to death. On this appeal, defense counsel states these facts: The bodies of John L. House and Jessie Guthrie were found during the midmorning hours of June 9, 1970, in or near a diversion canal in Scotlandville, East Baton Rouge Parish. There was evidence to show that at some time between 4:00 and 5:20 that morning Guthrie and House were taken from a service station, at which they were working, to the location described above. Evidence was also presented tending to show that these two men may have been shot with a sawed-off shotgun owned by one Willie Holmes, also known as "Black Domino". In the course of investigation, the ownership of this shotgun was determined; whereupon Holmes was questioned and incriminated the defendants, Dotch and Kaufman, by relating conversation he had with them after the crimes were supposedly committed.
It was also established at the trial that during the course of the evening of June 8, 1970, Dotch, Kaufman, Holmes and one Delores Williams were together and that the shotgun in question had at times been in their automobile.
A room at King's Motel was also shown to have been rented to a woman identified as Delores Williams at 3:00 or 4:00 and that Dotch appeared at the motel a little later inquiring as to the location of the room.
I.
The first issue, presented by four bills of exceptions (Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7), involves excusing four prospective jurymen who answered on voir dire examination they could not, under any circumstance, render a verdict for which a capital sentence could be imposed. The ruling in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968) is relied upon by defendants. However, since the Witherspoon Case, the United States Supreme Court has, in effect, declared the death penalty unconstitutional as presently administered in Louisiana in murder prosecutions. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). A number of cases in which this Court affirmed convictions where a death sentence was involved have been remanded to be considered in light of that holding.
On remand we followed the procedure first adopted in State v. Shaffer, 260 La. 605, 257 So.2d 121 (1971), and State v. Duplessis, 260 La. 644, 257 So.2d 135 (1971) by remanding the case to the trial court for resentencing to life imprisonment. If we conclude that this conviction should be affirmed, we shall remand this case with instructions to sentence the defendants to life imprisonment. See State v. Franklin, 263 La. 344, 268 So.2d 249.
Because of the unconstitutionality of the death penalty in this case since Furman v. Georgia, a prospective juryman's attitude toward the death penalty is no longer relevant. The issue presented by those bills, therefore, is moot.
Defense counsel argues that although excusing these four prospective jurors for their attitude toward capital punishment, when capital punishment is no longer constitutional, may render that complaint moot, a valid complaint nevertheless subsists. For the unnecessary exclusion of these prospective jurors, if permitted to stand, would unconstitutionally operate to deprive an accused of a trial by jurors who would be acceptable on all other grounds.
This contention lacks merit in the absence of a showing that the accused were compelled to accept an obnoxious juror. Defendants' right in impaneling a jury is one of rejection, not selection. State v. Spencer, 257 La. 672, 243 So.2d 793 (1971); State v. Campbell, 173 La. 831, 138 So. 853 (1931).
II.
During examination of prospective jurors on their voir dire, the State's attorney sought to elicit from several of them whether they would accept and apply the presumption that one in the unexplained possession of property that has been stolen is presumed to be a thief.; and, further, whether they would accept the proposition that one in the unexplained possession of property stolen during the commission of a murder is presumed guilty of that murder.
Defense counsel objected that it was improper for the State to refer to a presumption applicable to a crime other than that for which these defendants were charged. It is further contended that this presumption destroys and nullifies the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence which attends all persons accused of crime.
The objection that the presumption applying to one in possession of property recently stolen should not be referred to in this murder prosecution is not well-founded. Evidence was offered at the trial that after the bodies of the victims were found Kaufman was in possession of a number of packages of cigarettes. It was also shown by the evidence that a quantity of cigarettes were taken from the place of business where the victims were working shortly before their bodies were found.
The relevancy of the State's inquiry is therefore manifest. Murder is defined in one sense as the killing of a human being when the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated burglary, armed robbery, or simple robbery, even though he has no intent to kill. La.R.S. 14:30. Unexplained possession of property recently stolen from the scene of a killing presents evidence that the killing could have occurred while the property was being taken during a burglary or robbery. The evidence, later produced, that the killing was with a gun satisfies the requirement that it be aggravated.
The objection that reference to the presumption defeats the presumption of innocence is answered in Section 432 of Title 15 of the Revised Statutes in these words :
A legal presumption relieves him in whose favor it exists from the necessity of any proof; but may none the less be destroyed by rebutting evidence; such is the presumption attaching to the regularity of judicial proceedings; that the grand jury was legally constituted; that public officers have done their duty; that a relation or subject-matter once established, continues, but not that it preexisted; that the defendant intended the natural and probable consequences of his act; that the defendant is innocent; that the defendant is sane and responsible for his actions; that the person- in the unexplained possession of property recently stolen is the thief; that evidence under the control of a party and not produced by him was not produced because it would not have aided him; that the witnesses have told the truth. (Emphasis added.)
These legal presumptions must arise from facts proven by competent legal evidence. The presumption is simply a reasonable conclusion the law draws from proven facts. The presumption is rebut-table. The sole effect of the rebuttable presumption is to shift the burden of producing evidence during the progress of the trial. The presumption that the person in the unexplained possession of stolen property is the thief obtains only until evidence to the contrary is introduced.
This statute does not change the rule as to the presumption of innocence or place any affirmative burden upon the accused to take the stand and testify, for, when all evidence has been adduced, the State must nevertheless have overcome the presumption, of innocence and the guilt of the accused must have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. To say that a person in the unexplained possession of property recently stolen is presumed to be the thief, takes for granted that property has been recently "stolen" with all that term implies; that the person against whom the presumption operates is in possession of that recently stolen property and that he refuses or is unable to satisfactorily explain his possession. This would at least cast grave doubt upon the presumption of innocence. After all, the presumption of innocence can also be rebutted. The quality and quantity of the evidence required to do this is for the jury to decide. State v. Nix, 211 La. 865, 31 So.2d 1 (1947). See also State v. Odom, 247 La. 62, 169 So.2d 909 (1964); People v. Kulig, 373 Ill. 102, 25 N.E.2d 73 (1940); 22A C. J.S. Criminal Law § 597.
III.
In his opening statement the State's attorney read and explained to the jury the following definition of criminal conspiracy taken from Article 26 of the Criminal Code:
Criminal conspiracy is the agreement or combination of two or more persons for the specific purpose of committing any crime, provided that an agreement or combination to commit a crime shall not amount to a criminal conspiracy unless, in addition to such agreement c ' combination, one or more of such parties does an act in furtherance of the object of the agreement or combination.
Also, from Article 455 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he read the following:
Each coconspirator is deemed to assent to or to commend whatever is said or done in furtherance of the common enterprise, and it is therefore of no moment that such act was done or such declaration was made out of the presence of the conspirator sought to be bound thereby, or whether the conspirator doing such act or making such declaration be or be not on trial with his code-fendant. But to have this effect a prima facie case of conspiracy must have been established.
Defense counsel objected that this reference to the law of conspiracy was irrelevant to the instant murder prosecution.
In his closing argument to the jury the prosecution again referred to the law of conspiracy as it applied to the facts of the case at bar and illustrated his argument with a hypothetical set of facts.
Finally, the trial judge instructed the jury on the law of conspiracy by reading the same portions of Article 26 of the Criminal Code and Article 455 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defense then reiterated the objection that the law of conspiracy was irrelevant, and failure to read the penal provision of the crime of conspiracy was prejudicial.
In brief, defense counsel informs us that during the trial the judge consistently allowed the State to introduce evidence in an attempt to prove conspiracy. According to the brief, however, conspiracy was not shown. The argument based upon the evidence is improper because the evidence and testimony forms no part of a bill of exceptions. The transcript should have been made part of the bill of exceptions to either support or refute the existence of evidence of conspiracy. In its absence it must be presumed that the judge's reference to conspiracy was based upon evidence of a conspiracy. La.R.S. 15:432.
It will not do for counsel to only attach to the bill of exceptions that portion of the evidence which supports his contention and omit that portion supporting the trial judge's ruling. When there is a claim of a lack of evidence concerning a particular issue, it is more often than not necessary to make the entire record part of the bill of exceptions upon which such a negative contention is based.
The objections that reference to conspiracy in this murder prosecution was irrelevant and therefore prejudicial is also not well-founded. It is well settled that when multiple defendants are charged with a substantive offense, evidence is admissible of a conspiracy to commit the crime charged. State v. Robichaux, 165 La. 497, 115 So. 728 (1928); State v. Gebbia, 121 La. 1083, 47 So. 32 (1918); State v. Ford, 37 La.Ann. 443 (1885).
As a general rule, the court should instruct on every essential question in the case to properly advise the jury on the issues of law. La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 802. Ultimately, whether a conspiracy has been established is a question of fact for the jury, but the jury must be instructed on the law of conspiracy so that the jury may apply the law in the fact-finding process — that is, the law must guide the jury in its effort to decide which facts are relevant to the ultimate conclusion. And this rule obtains in a prosecution for murder where two or more persons are charged. State v. Skinner, 251 La. 300, 204 So.2d 370 (1967). For the same reasons, no error was committed when the State's attorney referred to the law of conspiracy in his opening statement.
IV.
This issue concerns the competency of the witness Patricia Butler, Kaufman's common-law wife, to give evidence against him. When she was called as a witness for the State, Kaufman's counsel challenged her competency and moved to introduce evidence that theirs was a long-standing relationship; that children were born of the illicit union and that no legal impediment existed to their marriage. The trial judge ruled that notwithstanding the evidence sought to be introduced, Patricia Butler was competent to testify against Kaufman because the privilege between husband and wife does not apply to a so-called common-law marriage.
When Patricia Butler was asked whether Kaufman had made an inculpatory statement to her, objection was again made and overruled.
Louisiana law provides that "Private conversations between husband and wife shall be privileged", and, "Neither husband nor wife shall be compelled to be a witness on any trial upon an indictment, complaint or other criminal proceeding, against the other." La.R.S. 15:461. The cases have held, however, that this privilege does not impair the competency of a man's concubine to testify against him. State v. Brown, 28 La.Ann. 279 (1876); Meunier v. Covet, 2 Mart.O.S. 56 (La.1811).
For the same reasons there was no error when the State's attorney made reference to his opening statement to the proof he would produce by Patricia Butler's testimony against Kaufman.
V.
It is contended that the State should have tried these defendants separately, for by trying them jointly the rule established in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), was violated. There it was held that admission at the joint trial of a code-fendant's extrajudicial confession incriminating the other defendant violated the latter's right of cross-examination under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The trial judge overruled the contention on the authority of State v. Hopper, 253 La. 439, 218 So.2d 551 (1969), and Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).
The several witnesses who testified to extrajudicial inculpatory statements made by Kaufman and Dotch were carefully instructed by the State's attorney when the question was asked to testify only to the statements made by either Kaufman or Dotch concerning himself. They were instructed not to testify to anything in the inculpatory statement which may have concerned someone else. Then, when defense counsel objected, the witnesses were instructed by the judge not to testify concerning what was said by Kaufman or Dotch, as the case might be, except insofar as the statement concerned the particular defendant whose inculpatory statement was then the subject matter of interrogation. Moreover, the jury was additionally instructed that the testimony was to be considered as relating only to the particular defendant whose inculpatory statement was then in question and no one else.
And when the witnesses were permitted to testify, they testified only with respect to the inculpatory statement of the one defendant whose statement was then at issue without mention of or reference to the other. The State's attorney, the trial judge and the witnesses were extremely careful when they were concerned with the incul-patory statement of one defendant not to refer to the other defendant in any particular. Thus no deprivation of the right to confrontation occurred. The inculpatory statement complained of made no mention of the other defendant and the inculpatory statement was not testimony "against" the other defendant.
The rulings of the trial judge on this issue were correct.
VI.
In an effort to show a prior inconsistent statement of the witness, Delores Williams, the State's attorney asked her, "Do you deny you told Patricia Butler that these (referring to the victims) were just two white honkys who got killed, and if it had been two colored people they would have forgotten about it? Do you deny that you told her that ? " Defense counsel objected that a proper foundation had not been established to permit this question, and he moved for a mistrial.
According to Section 493 of Title 15 of the Revised Statutes,
"Whenever the credibility of a witness is to be impeached by proof of any statement made by him, contradictory to his testimony, he must first be asked whether he has made such statement, and his attention must first be called to the time, place and circumstance and to the person to whom the alleged statement was made, in order that the witness may have an opportunity of explaining that which is prima facie contradictory. If the witness does not distinctly admit making such statement, evidence that he did make it is admissible." (Emphasis added.)
Obviously it was entirely proper for the State's attorney to first ask the witness whether she made the statement, the credibility of which he sought to impeach, for that is precisely what the quoted statute requires. When the defense objection was overruled and a mistrial was refused, we presume that if the State's attorney continued the questioning, he complied with the remaining steps required by the statute to successfully impeach Delores Williams. The bill of exceptions does not disclose what transpired subsequently.
Mistrials are permitted under certain limited circumstances, such as inability of the jury to agree, a defect in the proceeding which would make a verdict reversible, defendant's lack of capacity to proceed, impossibility of the trial to proceed, etc. La. Code Crim.Proc. art. 775.
The circumstances do not warrant a mistrial on this issue.
VII.
Patricia Butler was called as a witness by the State and was questioned by the State's attorney as to a statement she gave the police officers during the course of the investigation. This interrogation was for the purpose of impeachment, the State's attorney having pleaded surprise. While being interrogated, the witness declared, "I said when I came in all this is a lie; T mean Roosevelt didn't tell me nothing. I lied." She was then asked if she did not tell the police officers that Kaufman told her "that three shots were fired in killing these two men." Objection was made that after the witness admitted she lied any further questioning to support impeachment was irrelevant.
Aside from the fact that the question of relevancy is the weakest of objections, it was required of the State's attorney that he pose the specific question he did ask relating to the statement made by the witness if he desired to impeach her in that respect. La.R.S. 15:493. There is no merit in this defense objection.
VIII.
Patricia Butler, the State's witness, was questioned about a conversation she had with Delores Williams, another witness previously called -by the State. She was asked, "What did she tell you on that occasion about this thing?". An objection of hearsay was made by the defense. Since the purpose of this question was to impeach and show bias of Delores Williams, who had previously denied making a statement to Patricia Butler at the time, it is an exception to the hearsay rule. Moreover, there is no showing that this question affecting Delores Williams had any prejudicial effect upon these defendants.
Patricia Butler then answered the question saying, "It was a lot concerning Roosevelt and it was that' — she said if we was talking, she said if Roosevelt and them be found guilty, I mean convicted, he wasn't in his right mind, and she said something about the honkys." The defense then moved for a mistrial on the grounds of hearsay and because the question was an improper reference to race.
It is grounds for a mistrial if a "remark or comment" made within hearing of the jury by the district attorney during the trial refers to race, if the remark or comment is not material and relevant. La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 770. Clearly, however, when the district attorney is questioning a witness concerning a reference to race made by another witness to establish the bias of the latter witness, it is not the type of "remark or comment" contemplated by Article 770.
After the trial judge denied the motion, the State's attorney stated in the presence of the jury, and for the record, that he was offering the testimony of Patricia Butler to impeach the testimony of Delores Williams. This was objected to as an attempt by the State to use this impeachment testimony to present inflammatory statements to prejudice the jury.
The weight to be given to Patricia Butler's testimony was for the jury. As noted before, it had not such a reference to race which the law prohibits.
The remaining questions seeking to impeach the testimony of Delores Williams or to show her bias were also proper. The reasons already assigned are applicable to them also.
IX.
In his closing argument to the jury the State's attorney, in referring to the testimony of Delores Williams, one of the State's witnesses, stated: "She denies that she told her don't worry about these two white honkys." Whereupon defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the grounds that the statement was highly inflammatory, based on race, and was volunteered by the State's attorney.
As previously pointed out, this is not a reference to race reprobated by Article 770 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To the contrary, the statement was a reference to relevant evidence and a permissible conclusion of fact that the State could draw from the evidence admitted. La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 774.
X.
The Court is urged to decide that physical evidence retained at any time since the alleged crime in the custody of a lay witness for the State instead of the Sheriff or other official or their employees is improper; that a showing that physical evidence retained in the custody of a State witness, not a law enforcement agency, presents an inadequate predicate for admission of physical evidence at the trial in that the chain of custody and connexity has been broken. No authority is cited to support the contention.
There is no merit in such a proposition. Custody and connexity of physical evidence is a matter of fact for the jury to determine; its relevancy for admission a question for the judge. State v. Coleman, 254 La. 264, 223 So.2d 402 (1969). No requirement exists in law that the evidence can only be preserved by law enforcement agencies or officers.
XI.
Although the normal order of trial procedure requires the presentation of the evidence of the State, and of the defendant, and of the State in rebuttal, "the court in its discretion may permit the introduction of additional evidence prior to argument." La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 765. Therefore, when the State was permitted after the defense had rested to call Willie Moore for the first time as a witness in chief and as a rebuttal witness, the propriety of this action rested in the sound discretion of the trial judge.
The State related that this witness was located only an hour before trial. Inasmuch as no showing was made that the State was not diligent in obtaining the witness, no abuse of discretion is shown.
XII.
Counsel for Kaufman filed a supplemental motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. To support the motion, he attached his affidavit and the affidavit of Verna Kaufman. His affidavit set forth that on July 7, 1971 Verna Kaufman came to his office and informed him that on Tuesday, June 9, 1970 at about 4:00 in the afternoon Iley Dotch told her that during the preceding evening and morning he, Delores Williams and Willie Holmes took Kaufman to a motel in a drunken and drugged condition and left him there. They then took his car and robbed a service station. She further told counsel that she was afraid to disclose this information to the authorities, the parties or counsel involved in the trial until she heard Kaufman had escaped from the parish jail. Verna Kaufman's affidavit was to the same effect.
A bill of exceptions was reserved to the court's refusal to grant a new trial. In our view the evidence was cumulative and there was no abuse of discretion in the ruling. State v. Dale, 200 La. 19, 7 So.2d 371 (1942).
For the reasons assigned, the convictions are affirmed; the sentences are set aside; and the case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to sentence defendants to life imprisonment.
McCALEB, C. J., concurs in the decree.
BARHAM, J., dissents with reasons.
TATE, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
DIXON, J, dissents.
. The penalty provision of the statute was omitted.