Court Opinion

ID: 9666839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:28:46.168249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:12.597688
License: Public Domain

McCALEB, Justice
(dissenting).
I entertain doubt that the envelope bearing an inscription relative to the purchase of the marijuana cigarette contained therein was inadmissible in evidence. But, even if it was, I am certain that the error in receiving it was not of such a prejudicial nature as to warrant a reversal of the conviction herein.
At the outset, it is clear that the marijuana cigarette which the witness, Otwell, purchased from the defendant was admissible in evidence, together with the envelope in which it had been deposited for safekeeping since its acquisition. But counsel for defendant objected to Otwell reading the identifying inscription on the envelope to the jury on the ground that it was immaterial and irrelevant. This objection was not well founded, in my opinion, because the inscription, while recounting a fact to which *1069the witness had testified, was necessary for the purpose of identifying the marijuana ■cigarette as the one he had purchased from ■defendant.
The general rule throughout this country •is that maps, photographs and other demonstrative evidence are not inadmissible, if they are otherwise relevant, because of markings or legends thereon, if the individual who made the mark or wrote the legend •explains it or testifies as to its correctness. 'See Annotation 108 A.L.:R. 1415-1428 and •the many cases cited in support of the text.
The case of State v. Dore, 227 La. 282, 79 So.2d 309, relied on by the majority, is not apposite. There, the prosecuting witness was permitted to read a statement that she had given to the Coroner and this statement was subsequently offered in evidence .and read by the district attorney to the jury. 'The court correctly found that this hearsay statement was offered for no .other purpose than to bolster the testimony of the prosecuting witness and that the reading of it to the jury by the district attorney was especially prejudicial as the force of his personality .and the weight .of his public office unduly enhanced its evidentiary value.
However, it is manifest in this case that •the inscription on the envelope containing •the marijuana cigarette did not bolster the •testimony of the witness, Otwell, in any .appreciable measure and the State did not •offer the exhibit for that purpose. On the contrary, as I have above pointed out, the cigarette and the envelope with the notation thereon in Otwell’s handwriting was offered for the purpose of identifying the cigarette as the one purchased from the defendant. The cigarette, though prejudicial, was clearly admissible being corroborative of Otwell’s testimony but, in order to be received, it first had to be identified by the witness as the one purchased from defendant. This could only be done by the inscription on the envelope in the handwriting of the witness. Under the decision herein, it will be henceforth practically impossible to offer this type of exhibit in evidence.
But, even though it be conceded that the majority are correct in holding the inscription on the envelope inadmissible, I fail to perceive that the error has been so prejudicial as to authorize a reversal of the conviction. It has many times been recognized that it is not every error committed in the lower court which entitles the defendant in a criminal case to a new trial. State v. Saia, 212 La. 868, 33 So.2d 665 and State v. Grayson, 225 La. 142, 72 So.2d. 457. And Article 557 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (R.S. 15:557) specifically provides, among other things, that a new trial shall not be granted in any criminal case because of the improper admission or rejection of evidence unless it appears that the error complained of has probably resulted in a miscarriage of justice or is prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused.
*1071It is difficult for me to comprehend how the introduction of the envelope, containing the notation of the identical facts testified to by Otwell, substantially prejudiced the defendant or was a contributing factor in his conviction.
I respectfully dissent.