Court Opinion

ID: 9670212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:16:43.130606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:03.058667
License: Public Domain

SANDERS, Justice
(dissenting).
In my opinion, Bill of Exceptions No. 1, reserved to the admission of the oral confessions in evidence, has merit.
The defendants objected to the admission of these confessions, because the District Attorney gave them no written notice of his intention to introduce the confessions as required by Article 768 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure.
Article 768 provides:
b “If the state intends to introduce a confession or inculpatory statement in evidence, it shall so advise the defendant in writing prior to beginning the state’s opening statement. If it fails to do so a confession or inculpatory statement shall not be admissible in evidence.”
The majority holds that this Article is inapplicable to non-jury trials. Apparently the written notice of the intention to use a confession would be eliminated whether the non-jury trial be for a felony or misdemeanor.1 I do not share this view.
By its terms, the Article is not limited to ■jury trials. It provides a salutary rule whereby the District Attorney must give notice prior to the beginning of the trial of his intention to introduce inculpatory statements. The rule is vitally important to a defendant in any criminal prosecution. It enables the defendant to prepare to meet Jhe issues that may arise from an attempt to use a statement against a defendant at the trial. However, it is especially important in the case of oral confessions. Such oral confessions are not subject to pre-trial discovery. State v. Hall, 253 La. 425, 218 So.2d 320 (1969); State v. Johnson, 249 La. 950, 192 So.2d 135 (1966); State v. Lea, 228 La. 724, 84 So.2d 169 (1955). Neither are oral confessions a proper subject for the motion to suppress. See L.S.A.-C.Cr.P. Art. 703. Hence, as to oral confessions, a defendant must rely solely upon the District Attorney’s written notice to organize the defense.
Although the matter is not free from difficulty, I would apply Article 768 to all jury trials and all non-jury trials prosecuted by the District Attorney. See L.S.A.-C.Cr.P. Art. 15.
The omission of the written notice in the present case is reversible error. The oral confessions represented the crucial element of the State’s case against the defendants. It is apparent that the defendants were prejudiced in making their defense. .See L.S.A.-C.Cr.P. Art. 921; State v. Jack*985son, No. 51,240, handed down January 17, 1972, 260 La. 561, 256 So.2d 627. Hence, the harmless error doctrine of State v. Lacoste, 256 La. 697, 237 So.2d 871 (1970), is inapplicable.
In considering the omission of the Miranda warnings, the majority overlooks our decision in State v. Angelo, 251 La. 250, 203 So.2d 710 (1967). Nonetheless, the final result reached on that issue is correct.
For the reasons assigned, I respectfully dissent as to Bill of Exceptions No. 1.

. The jury may be waived in all non-capital felonies not necessarily punishable by imprisonment at hard labor. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 780.