Title: State v. Mastricovo
Citation: 221 La. 312, 59 So. 2d 403
Docket Number: N/A
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: April 28, 1952

59 So. 2d 403 (1952) 221 La. 312 STATE v. MASTRICOVO. No. 40529. Supreme Court of Louisiana. April 28, 1952. Rehearing Denied June 2, 1952. G. Wray Gill, Alex W. Swords, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant. Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Severn T. Darden, Dist. Atty., Phil Trice, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for appellee. *404 MOISE, Justice. Frank Mastricovo was convicted of violating LSA-R.S. 40:962, in that he had in his possession, illegally, eleven ounces of heroin; and pleading guilty as a double offender, he was sentenced to serve ten years at hard labor in the Louisiana State Penitentiary. His appeal presents for our consideration ten bills of exception, which will be discussed in four groups. Bills I and II were reserved to the Court's denial of a motion to quash and motion to dismiss and suppress, both of which were based upon identical allegations that essential evidence was obtained by means of an illegal search and seizure. The record discloses the following facts anent this charge: Mastricovo was arrested on July 8, 1950, on the sidewalk outside his place of business, which was thereupon immediately searched but which failed to yield any narcotics. The Narcotic Squad of the Police Department of the City of New Orleans then compelled him to accompany them to his apartment, at 540 Dumaine Street (second floor). No narcotics were found in the apartment itself, but the officers discovered two delicate scales of the type used to weigh out heroin and the milk sugar with which it is "cut" for distribution to addicts, and also a number of small envelopes. An obvious trail led from the apartment up the two flights of dusty stairs to the third floor and fourth floor attic (both unoccupied). On the third floor the officers found more envelopes of the same type as those previously discovered in the second floor apartment, and on the fourth floor they found 11 ounces of heroin compound (consisting of 57% heroin and 43% milk sugar), worth $150,000 in the narcotic market. Defendant contends that such seizure was an independent act, not incidental to his arrest, and that his rights under both the Federal and State Constitutions were violated, that the evidence was therefore illegal and should have been suppressed, and consequently, the bill of information dismissed, since the evidence thus obtained formed the only basis of the charge. Defendant makes the additional contention that the raid having been made under the direction of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and its chief agent, the police officers were for the purpose of that raid, quasi Federal Narcotic Agents, and that no prosecution could lie under the Federal statutes in the absence of a search warrant, and the lack thereof renders the entire proceeding, both seizure and arrest, null and void in its incipiency. There is no merit to either of these bills. The jurisprudence of this state is settled beyond any question that relevant evidence, although seized without a search warrant, is none the less admissible. State v. Shotts, 207 La. 898, 22 So. 2d 209; State v. Alvarez, 182 La. 908, 162 So. 725; State v. Eddins, 161 La. 240, 108 So. 468; State v. Davis, 154 La. 405, 97 So. 590; State v. Lowry, 153 La. 177, 95 So. 596; State v. Mims, 153 La. 9, 95 So. 264; State v. Fleckinger, 152 La. 337, 93 So. 115; City of Shreveport v. Marx, 148 La. 31, 86 So. 602. It matters not that an agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics accompanied these arresting officers; accused was tried in a State court for violating a statute of the State of Louisiana, and the fact that the offense might also violate a Federal statute on the same subject has no bearing on the circumstances. Bills III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII relate to the refusal of the trial court to permit evidence that defendant was beaten by the police after his arrest. The sequence of events after the discovery of the heroin outlined supra is as follows: Defendant and his wife were confronted therewith, and defendant made a confession of ownership. He, his wife, and their nine-year old daughter were then taken to the Office of the Bureau of Narcotics, United States Treasury Department, Federal Building, New Orleans. Mrs. Mastricovo and the child were later released and defendant removed to the office of the Superintendent of Police, City of New Orleans; while there, he alleges that he was mistreated and beaten so severely that he made a written confession, admitting ownership of said narcotics. He also contends that the oral confession made at his domicile had not been voluntarily made, but had been made because of the inducement offered *405 by some of the arresting officers to free defendant's wife and child, were he to confess; and he argues that there was highly prejudicial error in not permitting him to cross-examine the respective arresting officers with respect to the eliciting of the verbal confession. There is no merit to these bills. The prosecution made no attempt to use the written confession which had been obtained after defendant's remand to the custody of the New Orleans Police Department. The only confession which it sought to introduce was the verbal confession made by defendant at his home. The trial judge held "that the testimony [as to beatings of accused after he had left his house] was irrelevant and immaterial to any of the issues in this case", since they had not been part of a continuous action. However, he ruled out the introduction of even the verbal confession after hearing all the testimony adduced in connection with accused's objections thereto (the jury having been retired in each instance), being convinced that an inducement had been made, if not by one of the arresting officers, then by the Federal agent who accompanied them. The jury proceeded to convict the accused upon circumstantial evidence. It is obvious from the exhaustive per curiam of the judge a quo that careful consideration was given to the testimony of the witnesses before permission to place it before the jury was refused, and we find no error in the rulings complained of: We fail to see how, under these circumstances, the mere mention by the State in its opening statement that it expected to use a verbal confession, without any details being given, could have operated to the prejudice of the accused; if anything, such defenses as he could interpose to this prosecution were strengthened by the refusal of the court to permit its introduction in evidence. Bill IX was reserved to the overruling of defendant's objection to the following question propounded by the State to his wife, under cross-examination: The witness ultimately answered the question thus: Defense counsel based his objection on two grounds: (1) that the supposed incident had not been covered in the opening statement, and (2) that the inquiry was not pertinent, that "the child was not here" [at the trial.] The per curiam points out that mention of the scales had been made in the opening statement, from which it quotes, and further, that before the question had been asked, there had already been testimony to the effect that the scales found in defendant's kitchen were of the type used by those engaged in the narcotic traffic to weigh extremely small amounts of heroin and milk sugar. The incident was part and parcel of the res gestae of the arrest and was relevant and material. The state was at liberty to show this witness' bias, interest or corruption. Art. 492, Code of Criminal Procedure; LSA-R.S. 15:492. State v. Graziani, 168 La. 297, 121 So. 872. Bill X was reserved to the overruling of accused's motion for a new trial. The motion reiterates the reservations of the first nine bills, and urges additionally that though counsel did his best for defendant at the time of the trial, due to counsel's poor health defendant's case suffered. The granting of a new trial upon such a plea is *408 largely within the discretion of the trial judge, who has had the opportunity to observe the appearance and behavior of the active participants in the case, and in this instance, the professional competence of counsel. As to the latter, he states: On reviewing the record, the court is of the opinion that counsel used every argument and employed every defense tactic available; and we find no reason to disagree with the trial judge's disposition of the motion for new trial. One other matter addresses itself to our attention in connection with this appeal. This case was tried on March 20, 1951; the verdict of guilty was returned, after a tenminute deliberation, at 12:25 A.M., March 21, 1951; sentence was pronounced on June 27, 1951, and the motion for suspensive appeal ordered returnable on August 22, 1951. The transcript was filed in this court on August 17, 1951. Sometime in November, 1951, the court stenographer who had taken down the testimony in the trial court died. On January 7, 1952, defense counsel moved to have the testimony transcribed in its entirety, i. e., in addition to the transcript of evidence which had been incorporated in the ten bills of exception and already included in the record, all the remaining untranscribed shorthand notes of the deceased court stenographer. The notes being undecipherable by anyone else, and counsel urging that it was necessary for the entire testimony to be before this court, the effect of granting the motion would have been to grant a new trial. It is noted that even at the time said motion was filed, the appeal had already been docketed for argument in this court on January 25, 1952. The motion was denied, and a bill of exception reserved to the denial. We find no error in the ruling complained of. Bills I and II in the original transcript were signed on June 19, 1951; the others were signed on June 22, 1951, and the per curiams were also signed on that date. The judgment rendered on the rule to show cause why the transcript should not be amended and completed states that defense counsel had had numerous conferences with said stenographer as to what testimony he desired transcribed for the purpose of preparing and presenting the formal bills reserved during the trial, that in each instance where request was made for the transcription of testimony, it was readily complied with, and that counsel at no time requested transcription of the entire testimony from the stenographer. While it is true that counsel, in connection with each respective bill, made the entire testimony of the case a part thereof, the burden was upon him to annex it and incorporate it in the formal bill, since that it is the only manner in which this court can consider evidence in criminal cases. LSA-R.S. 15:555, Article 555, Code of Criminal Procedure; State v. Lecompte, 214 La. 117, 36 So. 2d 695; State v. Russell, 167 La. 1010, 120 So. 629; State v. Goodson, 116 La. 388, 40 So. 771. The verdict and sentence are affirmed. FOURNET, C. J., absent.