Court Opinion

ID: 9673205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:08:16.986082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:20.708221
License: Public Domain

SANDERS, Justice
(dissenting).
The Court has reversed because the trial judge gave the jury an instruction as to conspiracy in a trial of three defendants for the illegal possession and sale of a narcotic drug. I dissent.
It is well settled that when multiple defendants are charged with a substantive offense, evidence is admissible at the trial of a conspiracy to commit the crime charged. State v. Robichaux, 165 La. 497, 115 So. 728; State v. Gebbia, 121 La. 1083, 47 So. 32; State v. Ford, 37 La.Ann. 443; 16 Am.Jur.2d Evidence, § 37, p. 147; Annota7 tion, 66 A.L.R. 1311.
When such evidence has been offered, the Court may properly give an instruction to the jury pertaining to conspiracy between the defendants, although the indictment or bill of information does not charge conspiracy. State v. Terrell, 175 La. 758, 144 So. 488; 53 Am.Jur., Trial, § 673, p. 519; Annotation, 66 A.L.R. 1311, 1314; 2 Marr’s Criminal Jurisprudence (2d ed. 1923) p. 848. See also State v. Taylor, 173 La. 1010, 139 So. 463, and State v. Brasseaux, 163 La. 686, 112 So. 650.
■ The rule applicable here is correctly stated in 53 Am.Jur., Trial, § 673, p. 519 as follows :
“[Wjhere there is evidence that the defendants had entered into a conspiracy to commit the crime charged, an instruction on the law of conspiracy is proper, and this, even though the indictment or information may not charge a conspiracy.”
Contrary to the majority, I am of the opinion that the holding of State v. Terrell, supra, supports the above rule. See also State v. Capaci, 179 La. 462, 154 So. 419. On the other hand, State v. Gunter, 208 La. 694, 23 So.2d 305 and State v. Fletcher, 236 La. 40, 106 So.2d 709, relied on by the majority, hold only that the trial judge committed no error in refusing to give conspiracy instructions in those cases. Hence, *324the cases provide no authority for the present decision. See, in this connection, State v. Kolafa, 291 Mo. 340, 236 S.W. 302.
I am unable to subscribe to the view that the conspiracy instruction is an “abstract, inapplicable discourse on the law.” In the concluding paragraph of the instruction, the trial judge clearly defined its purpose, that of determining whether one defendant’s acts and declarations bound the others. As I see it, the purpose is a valid one in this prosecution.
For the reasons assigned, I respectfully dissent.