Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Muryle WHITE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1975-01-20
Citations: 315 So. 2d 301
Docket Number: No. 55191
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Muryle WHITE.
Judges: SANDERS, C/ J., dissents for the reasons assigned by MARCUS, J.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 315
Pages: 301–307

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Muryle WHITE.
No. 55191.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jan. 20, 1975.
On Rehearing June 23, 1975.
Dissenting Opinion July 10, 1975.
James D. Davis, Gold, Hall, Hammill and Little, Alexandria, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald C. Martin, Dist. Atty., John S. Stephens, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
MARCUS, Justice.
Muryle White was indicted by the grand jury for the theft of property valued at more than $500.00. He was tried by a jury, found guilty of attempted theft and was sentenced to pay a fine of $200.00 and costs and to serve one year in the parish jail. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence to this court, relying upon two bills of exceptions.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NO. 1
Prior to the court charging the jury, defendant objected to the order in which the responsive verdicts for theft were listed, contending that the listing of "not guilty" after the other four responsive verdicts of guilty encourages a jury to compromise on a lesser included offense. In es sence, it is argued that the jury of "uninformed bystanders" was given only one choice out of five which involved the freedom of defendant.
First, the order of responsive verdicts on the list given to the jury by the court was in conformity with article 814 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure. We held in State v. Varice, 292 So.2d 703 (La.1974), a murder prosecution, that the order in which the responsive verdicts appeared on the list given to the jury was not prejudicial to the defendant. Here, as in Varice, no special charge was requested; the responsive verdicts were in the form prescribed by the codal article; the jury was selected and accepted by both the state and defendant and' therefore can be assumed to have been composed of intelligent persons.
This bill is without merit.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NO. 2
After the jury returned a verdict of attempted theft, defendant, by a motion in arrest of judgment, asserted that the verdict was so defective that it could not form the basis of a valid judgment. It is argued that, under the laws of this state, a sentence which can be imposed for attempted theft is directly related to the amount of the theft. Therefore, since the jury made no determination as to the amount of the attempted theft, no valid sentence can be imposed.
The charge in the indictment is that defendant did "commit theft of property, being an agrichemical herbicide, belonging to Thompson-Hayward Agriculture Chemical Plant, Natchitoches, Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, valued at more than $500.-00." The verdict determined by the jury is: "We, the Jury find the accused guilty of attempted theft."
The argument of defendant is that theft under La.R.S. 14:67 may be either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on the amount of the misappropriation. The attempt statute, La.R.S. 14:27, provides in pertinent part:
(2) If the offense so attempted is theft or receiving stolen things, and is not punishable as a felony, he shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both. If the offense so attempted is theft or receiving stolen things, and is punishable as a felony, he shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
Here, the sentence imposed is a fine of $200.00 and costs and one year in the Natchitoches Parish jail. It is thus urged that, without a determination by the jury as to the amount of the property or money which was the subject of the attempted theft, the sentence is invalid.
The fact that a guilty verdict of attempted theft failed to disclose the value of the property that defendant attempted to steal was held in State v. Hudson, 222 La. 14, 62 So.2d 85 (1952) not to render such verdict unresponsive to an indictment charging defendant with the theft of property valued at three hundred dollars under the authority of La.R.S. 15:386. The same provisions are now contained in article 814 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the verdict rendered herein was responsive to the charge of theft of property valued at more than $500.00. Art. 814, La.Code Crim.P.; State v. Hudson.
Furthermore, it is clear that the jury made a determination as to the amount of the attemped theft. The indictment specifically charges defendant with the theft of property valued at more than $500.00; the verdict was guilty of attempted theft. Therefore, it must be assumed that the verdict found defendant guilty of attempted theft of property in the amount specified in the indictment. Likewise, if the jury had returned verdicts of either "Guilty" or "Guilty of unauthorized use of movables," it would have clearly meant that the jury had found defendant guilty of theft of property or of unauthorized use of movables in the amount specified in the indictment.
The jury, having determined defendant guilty of attempted theft of property valued at more than $500.00, the sentence imposed by the judge was in accordance with the provisions of La.R.S. 14:67 and La. R.S. 14:27.
Hence, the sentence imposed by the court is based upon a valid verdict rendered by the jury. Art. 872, La.Code Crim.P.
Bill of Exceptions No. 2 is without merit.
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
. The responsive verdicts for the charge of theft, article 814 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are:
Guilty.
Guilty of theft of property of -
dollars in value.
Guilty of attempted theft.
Guilty of unauthorized use of movables.
Not guilty.