Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Arnold R. DYER
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1980-09-03
Citations: 388 So. 2d 374
Docket Number: No. 67030
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Arnold R. DYER.
Judges: LEMMON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 388
Pages: 374–376

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Arnold R. DYER.
No. 67030.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sept. 3, 1980.
Dissenting Opinion Sept. 24, 1980.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Michael W. Campbell, Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-relator.
Charles Michael Winters, New Orleans, for defendant-respondent.

Opinion:
MARCUS, Justice.
Arnold R. Dyer was charged by bill of information with attempted concealment of a firearm on his person in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 (La.R.S. 14:95). Defendant filed a motion to quash the information contending that it failed to charge an offense which is punishable under a valid statute. The trial judge granted the motion. On the state's application, we granted certiorari under our supervisory jurisdiction to review the correctness of this ruling.
The facts as supplied by defendant's memorandum in support of his motion to quash are as follows: At about 11:45 p.m. on January 14, 1980, as defendant was walking down a street in New Orleans, he was observed by a police officer who noticed a weapon protruding from defendant's right front pocket. The officer arrested defendant for carrying a concealed weapon. Subsequently, defendant was charged by information with an attempt to conceal a weapon on his person.
No evidence was adduced at the hearing on defendant's motion to quash. The issue was submitted on the pleadings. Though the trial judge's reasons for granting defendant's motion do not appear in the record, the state, in brief to this court, states that the trial judge found there can be no attempt to carry a concealed weapon.
La.R.S. 14:95(A)(1) provides:
A. Illegal carrying of weapons is:
(1) The intentional concealment of any firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, on one's person
In State v. Fluker, 311 So.2d 863 (La. 1975), we stated that:
[A] weapon, although not in "full, open view," is nonetheless not a "concealed" weapon if it is sufficiently exposed to reveal its identity. If the weapon is carried in a manner that reveals its identity, its carrier cannot be presumed to have intended to conceal it and, accordingly, is not in violation of the statute. [Footnote omitted.]
We further stated in Fluker:
The appropriate test to be applied in prosecutions for illegal carrying of weapons is whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed by the evidence, the manner in which defendant carried the weapon evinced an intent to conceal its identity.
La.R.S. 14:27 provides that an attempt, specific intent to commit a crime and an act in furtherance of the purpose, is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime and La.R.S. 14:5 provides that one who commits an offense which includes all of the ele ments of other lesser offenses may be prosecuted for and convicted of either the greater offense or one of the lesser and included offenses.
In prosecutions for illegal carrying of weapons, the state must prove that a defendant specifically intended to conceal the weapon on his person. Because a defendant's guilt is based on his intent to conceal, rather than the extent of his concealment, his conduct would be such that he either did or did not commit the substantive offense. In other words, the nature of the offense is such that proof of the attempted offense proves the substantive offense, as the elements of the attempted offense are the same as that of the substantive offense. Hence, it is obvious that attempted concealment, comprising the identical elements, cannot be a "lesser grade" of La.R.S. 14:95(A)(1). Proof of the elements of attempted concealment would not be proof of a "lesser offense" under La.R.S. 14:5 but would be proof of the greater offense alone. Accordingly, we agree with the trial judge's ruling that there can be no attempt to carry a concealed weapon.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the ruling of the trial judge granting defendant's motion to quash the bill of information is affirmed.
LEMMON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
DENNIS, J., dissents with reasons.
. 381 So.2d 1243 (La. 1980).