Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Edwin R. HILL
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1988-10-27
Citations: 534 So. 2d 1296
Docket Number: Nos. 88-KA-0080, 88-KA-0800
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Edwin R. HILL.
Judges: Before BYRNES, WILLIAMS and PLOTKIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 534
Pages: 1296–1300

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Edwin R. HILL.
Nos. 88-KA-0080, 88-KA-0800.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Oct. 27, 1988.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1988.
Writ and Stay Order Denied Jan. 27, 1989.
Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Sandra Pettle, Beryl M. McSmith, Asst. Dist. At-tys., New Orleans, for plaintiff.
Sherry Watters, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant.
Before BYRNES, WILLIAMS and PLOTKIN, JJ.

Opinion:
PLOTKIN, Judge.
Defendant Edwin Hill appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of LSA-R.S. 40:966. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Hill was arrested at the corner of Ptolo-my and Hendee in the Algiers section of New Orleans by New Orleans Police Officers Bernard Butler and Byron Wimbush at about 5 p.m. on December 31, 1986. Officer Butler testified at trial that he and Officer Dunn were on routine patrol in an unmarked police car when he spotted Hill and another black male, Lester Walton, standing on the corner talking. Officer Butler stated that Hill was holding a clear plastic bag, which looked like it contained handrolled cigarettes. The defendant "drop-kicked" the bag under a car parked at the corner when he saw the police approaching, Officer Butler stated. Officer Wimbush stated that he did not witness this activity, but stopped the car at the curve because his partner alerted him to the fact the defendant had kicked something under the car. Officer Butler stated that the two men were walking away when they stopped at the curve.
Both men were stopped and searched. The officers found a small bag of marijuana in the defendant's right top jacket pocket. The bag which had been kicked under the car was retrieved and found to contain 133 marijuana cigarettes. The police also found on the defendant's person $48, which Officer Butler said was pulled from "almost every pocket that he had." Neither officer saw any transaction occur between the two men.
The defendant testified at trial that he was standing on the corner of Hendee and Ptolomy streets talking to Walton when the police stopped them. He claims that two other men had been standing on the corner, but had run away after one of them yelled "police."
Although the defendant requested that Walton be subpoenaed, Walton failed to appear on the date of trial. Defendant's motion for a continuance based on nonappearance of a material witness was denied. The return on the subpoena reveals that the sheriff's office sought to deliver the subpoena on three consecutive days — May 20, 21 and 22, 1987. The return indicated that when no one answered the door on May 22 the subpoena was left on the door and a neighbor verified this action.
Walton had appeared and testified on the defendant's behalf at the motion to the suppress the evidence. He stated that he had spoken with the defendant at the corner for about 15 minutes prior to the arrest and that he did not see any drugs in Hill's possession, although he did see the police find the bag of marijuana cigarettes under the car.
On the morning of trial, the defendant was allowed to delay his opening statement until after the prosecution had made its statement to allow him time to attempt to locate the witness. The defendant was also granted a brief recess at the end of the State's case, but the motion for a continuance was denied. When the witness still could not be located, the defendant was forced to proceed to trial without Walton's testimony.
Defendant was found guilty as charged by a jury at his June 2, 1987 trial. His motion for new trial was denied and he was sentenced to three years at hard labor. He bases his appeal on two assignments of error. However, since we find that defendant is entitled to a new trial because his constitutional right to compulsory process was denied by improper service of a subpoena on a material witness and the resultant nonappearance of the witness for trial, discussion of the other issue is pretermit-ted.
A defendant's right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses on his behalf is embodied in both the federal and state constitutions and in the statutory law of this state. See U.S. Const, amend. 6; La. Const, art. I, sec. 16. La.C.Cr.P. art. 731 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The court shall issue subpoenas for the compulsory attendance of witnesses at hearings or trials when requested to do so by the state or the defendant.
The right of a defendant to compulsory process includes the right to demand subpoenas for witnesses and the right to have them served. State v. Latin, 412 So.2d 1357 (La.1982); State v. Lee, 446 So.2d 334 (La.App. 4th Cir.1984).
La.C.Cr.P. art. 735 allows service of a subpoena by personal or domiciliary service. Proper domiciliary service requires that the sheriff leave the subpoena at the "dwelling house or usual abode of the witness with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein as a member of the domiciliary establishment of the witness." The article does not allow the sheriff to leave the subpoena on the door of the witness' residence.
The record shows that Hill properly requested that Walton be subpoenaed well in advance of his trial. When a defendant makes proper request for the subpoena of a witness but the witness cannot be found by the sheriff, the sheriff is required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 736 to "set out in his return every fact that in his opinion justifies the return." Additionally, the sheriff is required to exercise reasonable diligence in searching for the person designated in the subpoena. State v. Mizell, 341 So.2d 385 (La.1976).
In the instant case, the return indicates that the subpoena was delivered, but delivered incorrectly. Although the government generally has no obligation to look for a witness requested by the defendant unless he was made unavailable because of some culpable conduct on the part of the government, State v. Hogan, 404 So.2d 488 (La.1981), in this case the defense was lead to believe that the subpoena had been delivered since it was not returned undelivered. This was misleading to the defendant and denied him his constitutional right to present a defense at trial. This was especially prejudicial in the instant case when all the evidence presented to the jury boiled down to a head-to-head confrontation between the defendant and a police officer. Had Walton testified and had his testimony supported defendant's story, the result might have been different. Therefore, we hold that the defendant's right to compulsory process and his right to present a defense were denied by the improper delivery of the subpoena.
Accordingly, the defendant's conviction is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court for new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.