Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Louis Dan SMITH
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-03-08
Citations: 275 So. 2d 733
Docket Number: No. 53071
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Louis Dan SMITH.
Judges: HAMLIN, C. J., and' SUMMERS, J., dissent.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 275
Pages: 733–738

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Louis Dan SMITH.
No. 53071.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
March 8, 1973.
Murphy W. Bell, Public Defender, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie Brown, Dist. Atty., Nathan Wilson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Louis Dan Smith, was charged by Bill of Information for the crime of armed robbery. He was tried by a jury, convicted and sentenced to serve ten (10) years in the state penitentiary. La.R.S. 14:64. On this appeal he urges four (4) bills of exceptions.
In our examination of the pleadings and proceedings below, following the submission of the case to us for review, we have found, ex proprio motu, the Bill of Information charging the armed robbery to be fatally defective.
The Bill of Information in the instant proceedings recites that Louis D. Smith, " ^ violate R.S. 14:64 in that he robbed City National Bank at 7415 Airline Highway, Baton Rouge, while armed with a dangerous weapon . . .
This crime was committed on or about December 13, 1971. The statute under which the accused was charged reads:
"Armed robbery is the meft of anything of value from the person of another or which is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon. . ."
In holding that the Bill of Information does not adequately charge the offense denounced by La.R.S. 14:64, we based our conclusion upon the failure of the prosecution to allege the person robbed. Absent such a recital, the information is rendered violative of the accused's fundamental right to be " informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him " as specified by Section 10 of Article 1 of the Louisiana Constitution (1921). See State v. Raby, 259 La. 909, 253 So.2d 370 (1970).
Not only does La.C.Cr.P. art. 465 require the naming of the victim in the short form indictment for armed robbery, but also art. 473 specifically requires the naming of the victim in murder, rape or battery which are illustrative of the many offenses in which the name is essential. Compare this with Art. 465 on the short form indictment for theft (R.S. 14:67) which does not require a recital of the victim. See also State v. Dozier, 258 La. 323, 246 So.2d 187 (1971) wherein this Court held that a re cital of the victim was a necessary element in an indictment attempting to charge aggravated assault.
Since the Bill of Information fails to charge a crime punishable under Louisiana law because of the omission of an essential ingredient of the offense sought to be charged, it is ordered quashed, and the defendant's conviction and sentence are set aside and the defendant is ordered discharged.
HAMLIN, C. J., and' SUMMERS, J., dissent.
SANDERS, J., dissents with written reasons.
TATE, J., also assigns additional concurring reasons.