State v. Andry

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Andry

255 So. 2d 81, 260 La. 79, 1971 La. LEXIS 3841

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided November 23, 1971·No. 51262·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Beraid H. Andry, was tried by a jury and convicted of the crime of possessing a narcotic drug, to wit: several capsules containing an opium derivative in violation of R.S. 40:962. He was sentenced to serve ten years in the State penitentiary at hard labor. On this appeal the accused is relying on two bills of exceptions to obtain a reversal of the conviction.

The two bills present the same question, i. e., whether there is evidence in this record tending to show that the defendant had constructive possession of the capsules. By these bills, Andry contends there was no showing by the State of constructive or actual possession by himself of said evidence.

We find no error in the trial court’s finding that the defendant did have constructive possession by virtue of the fact he had guilty knowledge of how many capsules were in the residence and that his knowledge connected him with the exhibits. State v. Smith, 257 La. 1109, 245 So.2d 327 (1971).

[81] For these reasons, we find the defendant-appellant’s contentions to be without merit. The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Beraid H. Andry, was tried by a jury and convicted of the crime of possessing a narcotic drug, to wit: several capsules containing an opium derivative in violation of R.S. 40:962. He was sentenced to serve ten years in the State penitentiary at hard labor. On this appeal the accused is relying on two bills of exceptions to obtain a reversal of the conviction.

The two bills present the same question, i. e., whether there is evidence in this record tending to show that the defendant had constructive possession of the capsules. By these bills, Andry contends there was no showing by the State of constructive or actual possession by himself of said evidence.

We find no error in the trial court’s finding that the defendant did have constructive possession by virtue of the fact he had guilty knowledge of how many capsules were in the residence and that his knowledge connected him with the exhibits. State v. Smith, 257 La. 1109, 245 So.2d 327 (1971).

[81] For these reasons, we find the defendant-appellant’s contentions to be without merit. The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

State v. Andry, 255 So. 2d 81, 260 La. 79, 1971 La. LEXIS 3841 (La. 1971).

Pincite

255 So. 2d 81 (State v. Andry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related