Title: State v. Bonfanti
Citation: 262 La. 153, 262 So. 2d 504
Docket Number: N/A
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: May 18, 1972

262 So. 2d 504 (1972) 262 La. 153 STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph S. BONFANTI, Jr. No. 52253. Supreme Court of Louisiana. May 18, 1972. *505 Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent Pitcher, Dist. Atty., Ralph L. Roy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellant. D'Amico, Curet &amp; Bush, Sam J. D'Amico, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee. PER CURIAM. The defendant, Joseph S. Bonfanti, Jr., was charged with simple battery, La.R.S. 14:35, upon the person of a juvenile, Marcia Ferracci. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment, which sentence was suspended and the defendant placed on probation for one year. Subsequently, the defendant was charged with indecent behavior with juveniles, La. R.S. 14:81. In the Bill of Information, he is alleged to have committed a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of Marcia Ferracci, a female child under the age of seventeen. To this second bill of information, the defendant entered a plea of double jeopardy, which was sustained by the trial court. From that judgment, the State has appealed. In order to understand the basis for the plea of double jeopardy, an understanding of the facts is necessary. The facts related are given as they appear in the testimony of the prosecuting witness, Miss Ferracci. Her testimony is as follows: Having tried the initial prosecution for simple battery, the trial judge sustained the plea of double jeopardy. We agree with the trial judge's conclusion that to try the defendant on the subsequent charge of indecent behavior with a juvenile would constitute double jeopardy. The two charges arose from one occurrence. The only witness testified fully concerning defendant's acts. In the simple battery trial, the prosecutrix testified that the defendant put his hands up under her dress. She verified that he was physically touching her at that time. That act, an intentional use of force upon her person, must rationally be concluded to have been part of the basis upon which the trial judge reached his judgment of guilty. The State makes no claim that there is additional evidence to support the charge of indecent behavior. Article I, § 9 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 provides: "nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense ...." Under both the jurisprudence and the statutes, defendant's plea of double jeopardy is good. State v. Roberts, 152 La. 283, 93 So. 95 (1922), held that there need only be substantial identity in the offenses charged, explaining that substantial identity exists when the evidence necessary to support the second charge would have been sufficient for the first. cf. State v. Foster, 156 La. 891, 101 So. 255 (1924). Code of Criminal Procedure Article 596 provides: This article replaced R.S. 15:279 (Code of Criminal Procedure of 1928), but the Official Revision Comment to C.C.R.P. art. 596 states that the basic test in R.S. 15:279 should be retained (that the offense *507 formerly charged and that presently charged are "either identical or different grades of the same offense ...."). With reference to C.Cr.P. art. 596(2), the Official Revision Comment states: "Yet, obviously there should be only one prosecution for what is in effect one criminal course of conduct." This defendant has been previously convicted of a crime (simple battery) for the same conduct for which he now stands accused of "indecent behavior." The constitution and laws of the State prohibit the second prosecution. For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plea of double jeopardy is affirmed.