Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Earl C. MUSE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1975-10-01
Citations: 319 So. 2d 920
Docket Number: No. 56129
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Earl C. MUSE.
Judges: SANDERS, C. J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 319
Pages: 920–924

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Earl C. MUSE.
No. 56129.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Oct. 1, 1975.
Dissenting Opinion Oct. 14, 1975.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1975.
Barry F. Viosca, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
SUMMERS, Justice.
In a bill of information Earl Muse was charged with committing a battery with a pistol upon Jerome Hamilton. He was found guilty and sentenced to serve four years at hard labor with credit for time served.
About six o'clock on the afternoon of April 12, 1975, Jerome Hamilton was watching a television news broadcast in a barber shop at the corner of Washington and Magnolia Streets in the city of New Orleans. Suddenly he heard a number of pistol shots being fired outside. As he walked to the door to investigate, he observed a Thunderbird automobile zigzagging down the street. Two people were seen firing pistols at the Thunderbird from across the street. Hamilton was then struck by a bullet below the eye and fell to the floor. He said he did not know either of the individuals who were firing at the Thunderbird, and knew no reason why the accused would shoot him.
Alfred Deleone, a state witness, testified that he and the defendant Earl Muse had a quarrel shortly before six o'clock on the afternoon of April 12. When he later drove past the corner of Washington and Magnolia Streets in his Thunderbird, Earl Muse fired six or seven shots at him with a pistol. At the time Muse was accompanied by another known to Deleone as "Nuck". Deleone stopped his car down the street and ran into his house for a pistol, while his assailants fled into Willow Street. As Deleone pursued them the police arrived at the scene, and Deleone in the ensuing confusion, attempted to dispose of the pistol he was carrying by giving it to a girl friend nearby. Deleone and Muse were arrested shortly thereafter.
At the trial, while Deleone was under cross-examination by the defense, the following colloquy occurred between Dele-one and defense counsel.
"Q. How long have you known Jerome? (Jerome Hamilton the victim of the bullet wound.)
A. About twenty years.
Q. You see him a lot?
A. On occasion. I don't see him every day.
Q. Do you ever have occasion to talk to people in the community about Jerome ? About his character ?
A. No.
Q. You never talked to anybody about him?
A. No.
Q. Do you know Jerome's general reputation in the community?
BY MR. CHEN: (Assistant District Attorney) Objection, Your Honor.
BY THE COURT: I'll have to sustain the State's objection.
BY MR. VIOSCA (Defense Counsel) To which ruling we'd reserve a bill of exception."
The trial judge assigns as reason for his ruling that Hamilton's general reputation in the neighborhood was strictly irrelevant and immaterial to the issue before the Court, and more particularly so since he was an innocent bystander. Alternatively, he asserts sustaining the State's objection was not prejudicial to the defense.
On this appeal defense counsel argues that it was error for the trial judge to restrict his effort on cross-examination to question the witness Deleone as to the character of Hamilton, a principal State witness; and that Hamilton's credibility was at issue and his character was being inquired into for the purpose of impeachment. To support this contention the defense relies upon Section 479 of Title 15 of the Revised Statutes which provides that "Character, whether good or bad, depends upon the general reputation that a man has among his neighbors, not upon what particular persons think of him."
From these facts it was entirely conceivable that Jerome Hamilton saw the person who fired the shot which caused his wound. Conceivably it was the person accompanying the defendant Muse at the time of the shooting. All of which is of course speculation. It may have been that Hamilton desired to see Muse's companion acquitted, and would not contradict Deleone's testimony accusing Muse. An attack upon Hamilton's credibility may, perhaps, have mitigated the evidence pointing to the guilt of Muse. All of which is, of course, relative at this point. In any event, the defense was not permitted to cross-examine the State's witness to show Hamilton's bad character, or its effect upon his credibility, whatever the object of the cross-examination may have been.
In our view the question was proper and should have been allowed.
The proper question to be put to a witness for the purpose of impeaching the general character of another witness, as approved by this Court in State v. Christian, 44 La.Ann. 950, 11 So. 589 (1892), is whether he would believe him upon his oath. The regular mode is to inquire whether they have the means of knowing the former witness' general character, and whether, from such knowledge, they would believe him on his oath. The proper inquiry is, what is his general character for truth in the place where he resides? and whether, from the witness' knowledge of his general character, he would believe him under oath.
As the Court observed in Paradise v. Insurance Co., 6 La.Ann. 596 (1851):
"It is not to be supposed that jurymen are personally acquainted with the character of all the witnesses that come before them, and, when they are called to find out the truth by means of the testimony presented to them, it is indispensable for the purposes of truth, that they should know how far portions of that testimony are entitled to credence. The inconvenience suggested is a serious one, but the exclusion of necessary information from the jury would be a much greater one."
Proof of character, therefore, whether good or bad, depends upon the general reputation that a man has among his neighbors, and it is undoubtedly a legitimate inquiry wherever the credibility of a witness is sought to be brought into question. State v. Oliver, 247 La. 729, 174 So.2d 509 (1965).
Having decided that the defense question was proper and denying this mode of questioning by the trial judge was error, the question is then what is the import of this error upon the trial.
"The accused in every instance shall have the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . ." This clause of Section 9 of Article I of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 is implemented by Sections 273 and 280 of Title 15 of the Revised Statutes providing, respectively, that
"The accused shall have the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him and the depositions of witnesses shall not be evidence either for or against him except as provided by law." La.R.S. 15:273.
"When a witness had been intentionally sworn and has testified to any single fact in his examination in chief, he may be cross-examined upon the whole case." La.R.S. 15:280.
The principle is recognized in Article I, Section 16 of the Constitution of 1974 in this clause: "An accused is entitled to confront and and cross-examine the witnesses against him . . . ."
As we said in State v. Giordano, 259 La. 155, 249 So.2d 558 (1971);
"The right of confrontation occupies the status of a paramount and fundamental right indispensable to a fair trial. It is a substantial, substantive and valuable right which assures the accused that he shall have the opportunity to be confronted by the witnesses against him and this includes not only the right to attend the trial and hear the witnesses but also the right to cross-examine them at the trial. It is a constitutional right, not a mere privilege."
Our cases have steadfastly recognized the importance of the right of cross-examination. State v. Williams, 250 La. 64, 193 So.2d 787 (1967); State v. Elias, 229 La. 929, 87 So.2d 132 (1956); State v. Angelle, 217 La. 852, 47 So.2d 664 (1950); State v. Nugent, 116 La. 99, 40 So. 581 (1906); State v. McCoy, 109 La. 682, 33 So. 730 (1903) ; Dubose v. Bosworth, Gunby's Dec. 41 (La.App.1885). See also Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965).
Francis L. Wellman, the distinguished trial lawyer of the New York bar, described the importance of cross-examination in these words:
"If all witnesses had the honesty and intelligence to come forward and scrupulously follow the letter as well as the spirit of the oath, 'to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' and if all advocates on either side had the necessary experience, combined with honesty and intelligence, and were similarly sworn -to develop the whole truth and nothing but the truth, of course there would be no occasion for cross-examination, and the occupation of the cross-examiner would be gone. But as yet no substitute has ever been found for cross-examination as a means of separating truth from falsehood, and of reducing exaggerated statements to their true dimensions." Wellman, The Art of Cross-Examination, p. 5 (4th ed. 1936).
Because the right of confrontation is denied by an improper restriction of cross-examination, the error is substantive and a denial of a constitutional right. As such the error nullifies the verdict and requires a new trial.
We cannot subscribe to the trial judge's opinion that the error was harmless for we do not know what defense counsel may have elicited from the witness, nor its effect upon the jury's determination of the defendant's guilt.
For the reason assigned, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the case is remanded for a new trial.
SANDERS, C. J., dissents and assigns written reasons.