Court Opinion

ID: 9688045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:58:22.767805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:34.608641
License: Public Domain

SANDERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the affirmance of defendant Triplett’s conviction.
I dissent, however, from the reversal of defendant Wright’s conviction. Under Bill of Exceptions No. 3, the majority holds the admission of Triplett’s confession violates the rule of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), applying the decision retroactively to this case.
Bill of Exceptions No. 3, however, does not raise this point. The Bill is founded only on the allegation that Triplett was not advised of his constitutional rights and the confession was not free and voluntary. As held by the majority, these contentions lack merit.
The defendants filed no motion for a severance. The record contains no formal bill of exceptions objecting to the joint trial or to the admission of the confession because the trial was joint. In the absence of a bill of exceptions, this Court cannot review the question. LSA-C.Cr.P. Arts. 844, 920.
For the reasons assigned, I respectfully dissent.