Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Emanuel DAVIS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1974-01-14
Citations: 289 So. 2d 123
Docket Number: No. 53935
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Emanuel DAVIS.
Judges: SUMMERS, J., concurs in the decree and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 289
Pages: 123–129

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Emanuel DAVIS.
No. 53935.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jan. 14, 1974.
Concurring Opinion Jan. 31, 1974.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1974.
Bernard J. Usprich, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
DIXON, Justice.
Defendant was tried under a bill of information charging him with armed robbery. R.S. 14.64. He was convicted after a trial by jury and was sentenced under the habitual offender statute to ninety-nine years at hard labor. Defendant appeals, relying on four bills of exceptions.
The facts as disclosed by the record are as follows:
On April 29, 1968 at approximately 12:15 a. m., the night manager of the Roslyn Hotel, 629 Carondelet Street, New Orleans, was robbed at gun point of his watch by two black men who fled the scene on a bicycle. The men on the bicycle were pursued by two taxicabs. During the chase the cab drivers broadcast their position and a general description of the bandits. The police picked up the broadcasts and converged upon the area. As the police turned onto Clio Street near Caron-delet they observed a bicycle sliding down the street and a man crawling underneath a parked car. The man was pulled from underneath the car and was searched. The victim's watch was found -in his pocket. Approximately ten • minutes elapsed between the robbery and the time the defendant was apprehended.
Bills of Exceptions Nos. 1 and 2
The bills pertain to the denial of a motion to suppress and the admission of the watch seized from the defendant at the time of his apprehension by the police. Defendant argues that the arrest was made without probable cause thus making the arrest illegal and rendering inadmissible evidence seized as a result of any search incidental to that arrest. State v. DiBartolo, 276 So.2d 291 (La.1973).
Article 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides in pertinent part:
"A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when:
"(3) The peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed an offense although not in the presence of the officer; . . . . "
As we said recently in State v. Warren, 283 So.2d 740, 743 (La.1973), citing State v. Johnson, 249 La. 950, 192 So.2d 135 (1966):
"Reasonable belief — or 'probable cause' as it is termed under the federal standard — to make an arrest without a warrant exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge, and of which he has reasonable trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to justify a man of average caution in the belief that a felony has been or is being committed. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); State v. Green, 244 La. 80, 150 So.2d 571 (1963); State v. Aias, 243 La. 945, 149 So.2d 400 (1963) ; State v. Calascione, 243 La. 993, 149 So.2d 417 (1963).
"Compliance with these standards is, in the first instance, a substantive determination to be made by the trial court from the facts and circumstances of the case. Ker v. State of California, 374 U. S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); State v. McIlvaine, 247 La. 747, 174 So.2d 515 (1965).
"And in determining compliance with these standards it is not the proof required for conviction which concerns us. Proof required to satisfy the requirement of reasonable belief or probable cause is less and is what the terms imply: probabilities and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable men could reasonably be expected to act. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); State v. Bourg, 248 La. 844, 182 So.2d 510 (1966)."
Probable cause requires more than mere suspicion but requires less than evidence sufficient to convict. State v. Wood, 262 La. 259, 263 So.2d 28 (1972).
In the present case, the fact that the person arrested had apparently been riding a bicycle, as had the robbers, that he fit the general description of one of the robbers, that he was apprehended near the place of the crime some ten minutes after it was committed and that he was apparently attempting to hide under a parked car, support a finding that reasonable belief or probable cause existed to arrest the defendant. As such a search of his person incidental to that arrest was proper. Cf. State v. DiBartolo, supra.
These bills are without merit.
Bill of Exceptions No. 3
This bill was reserved when the trial court overruled defense counsel's objection to the introduction of a brown hat and a bicycle into evidence. Defendant argues that the items were improperly admitted since no relationship was shown between them and the defendant.
The hat, which was found some two blocks from where the defendant was arrested, was identified by the victim as being similar to that worn by the defendant during the robbery. The bicycle, which was in the street approximately twenty feet from the car under which the defendant was hiding , was identified by the two taxi drivers as being similar to the one ridden by the robbers. In addition, the arresting officer testified that the bicycle was the one found near the defendant.
As we said in State v. Isaac, 261 La. 487, 260 So.2d 302, 306 (1972):
"Before the admission of an object in evidence, a foundation must be laid showing that it is related to the case. The foundation testimony may consist of visual identification of the object by witnesses or by establishing a continuous chain of custody from the seizure of the object to its introduction in evidence at the trial. For admission, it suffices if the testimony establishes that it is more probable than not that the object is connected with the case. A preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. . . . "
We find the foundation laid by the State with regard to both objects was sufficient to establish the requisite relationship.
This bill is without merit.
Bill of Exceptions No. 4
This bill was reserved when the trial court overruled defendant's objection to a question posed to the defendant while he was under cross-examination.
On direct examination defense counsel had posed the following questions to the defendant:
"Q. You are on parole from a charge of manslaughter on which you served some time in Angola, isn't that right?
"A. Yes sir.
"Q. You pleaded guilty to that charge, didn't you?
"A. Yes sir, I pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
"Q. Because you were guilty ?
"A. Yes sir.
"BY MR. WIMBERLY:
"I object, Your Honor, to counsel leading the witness.
"BY THE COURT:
"Objection sustained.
"BY MR. PERSCHALL:
"Q. Why didn't you plead guilty to this charge ?
"A. Because I don't know anything about this charge.
"Q. Have you ever been convicted of anything else except the manslaughter charge — any theft or robbery or anything ?
"A. No sir.
"BY MR. PERSCHALL:
"That is all."
Then, on cross-examination, the district attorney made the following inquiries:
"BY MR. WIMBERLY:
"Q. Davis, you said you pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Wasn't it because the original charge was murder, and carried a greater penalty ?
"BY MR. PERSCHALL:
"I object, all he can ask is what he was convicted of.
"BY MR. WIMBERLY:
"This is true, Your Honor, but counsel opened the door.
"BY THE COURT:
"Your objection is overruled. You opened the door, Mr. Perschall. He is under cross examination.
"BY MR. PERSCHALL:
"To which ruling of the Court, we respectfully reserve a bill of exceptions, making the question, my objection and the ruling of the Court part of said bill.
"BY THE COURT:
"Let the bill be reserved.
"BY MR. WIMBERLY:
"Q. Wasn't the original charge murder, and you pleaded to manslaughter because you were going to get a lighter sentence ?
"BY MR. PERSCHALL:
"I object, Your Honor.
"BY THE COURT:
"Objection overruled."
R.S. 15:462 permits a cross-examination of a defendant who takes the stand in the same manner and scope as any other witness. R.S. 15:495 provides:
"Evidence of conviction of crime, but not of arrest, indictment or prosecution, is admissible for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the witness, but before evidence of such former conviction can be adduced from any other source than the witness whose credibility is to be impeached, he must have been questioned on cross-examination as to such conviction, and have failed distinctly to admit the same; and no witness, whether he be defendant or not, can be asked on cross-examination whether or not he has ever been indicted or arrested, and can only be questioned as to conviction, and as provided herein." (Emphasis added).
Under this provision, only the fact of conviction is admissible and not the details of the prior offenses. State v. Kelly, 271 So.2d 870 (La.1973); State v. Brent, 248 La. 1072, 184 So.2d 14 (1966). Included within the prohibition against cross-examination on an indictment or information are inquiries concerning the indictment under which the witness was convicted. State v. Hayes, 262 La. 674, 264 So.2d 603 (1972).
Here the defense attempted to make the familiar point before the jury — that "every time I've been guilty before, I pleaded guilty — this time I'm not guilty." The State argues that it has the right, in attacking defendant's credibility, to show that his motive for pleading guilty to the prior offense was not a dedication to truth, but to escape a more serious charge. The argument is plausible, but not so plausible as the prohibition of R.S. 15:495. In addition to other sound reasons for prohibiting cross-examination of prior indictments, a strict interpretation of R.S. 15:495 will prevent a diversionary contest on a collateral issue, for it is logical to expect a defendant to then attempt to prove that he really was not guilty of the greater offense charged (which included the lesser offense to which he pleaded guilty).
Although the trial court was in er"-ror in permitting questions concerning the former indictment, it is clear from the record that it had no significant bearing on the outcome of the case, and we will not reverse for this error.
For these reasons, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
SUMMERS, J., concurs in the decree and assigns reasons.
BARHAM, J., dissents with reasons.
. The record before us contains all the testimony adduced at the trial.