State v. Artis

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Artis

391 So. 2d 847

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedDecember 15, 1980

Docket80-KA-1659

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 391 So. 2d 847 (State v. Artis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Artis, 391 So. 2d 847 (La. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

[1] Defendant Christopher Artis was charged by bill of information with simple burglary (R.S. 14:62) of the Texas Avenue Food Store in the city of Monroe. Following trial by jury, he was found guilty and sentenced to serve four years at hard labor. On appeal to this Court, defendant argues two assignments of error. Finding no merit in either of these assignments, we affirm the conviction and sentence of defendant.

[2] Defendant's first assignment of error is that the trial judge refused to give a special requested jury charge regarding identification testimony. An eyewitness to the crime identified defendant as the perpetrator. This witness was acquainted with defendant because defendant was a friend of the witness' granddaughter and had visited with her at the witness' home. The witness encountered defendant during the course of the crime and *West Page 848 defendant spoke to the witness, in essence telling him that the activity was none of his business. Defendant's requested jury charge is two-fold: defendant asked that the judge charge the jury concerning the likelihood of misidentification and the credibility of a witness who makes an identification. The judge's general charge dealt extensively with the assessment of credibility of a witness and also informed the jurors that they should consider a witness' ability to observe and the conditions under which the observation occurred. Defendant's requested charge need not have been given because it was covered in the general charge. C.Cr.P. art. 807.

[3] Defendant's second assignment of error is that he received an excessive sentence. The trial judge sentenced defendant to four years at hard labor for a crime which carries a maximum sentence of twelve years. Before pronouncing sentence, the judge determined that defendant had been placed on probation for a juvenile offense and sent to the Louisiana Training Institute; had been paroled from L.T.I., whereupon he committed another offense for which his parole was revoked; and he had then been returned to L.T.I. Under these circumstances, we are not prepared to say that four years is an excessive sentence for the crime of simple burglary. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1.

[4] Decree

[5] For the above reasons we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.

[6] AFFIRMED.

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

[1] Defendant Christopher Artis was charged by bill of information with simple burglary (R.S. 14:62) of the Texas Avenue Food Store in the city of Monroe. Following trial by jury, he was found guilty and sentenced to serve four years at hard labor. On appeal to this Court, defendant argues two assignments of error. Finding no merit in either of these assignments, we affirm the conviction and sentence of defendant.

[2] Defendant's first assignment of error is that the trial judge refused to give a special requested jury charge regarding identification testimony. An eyewitness to the crime identified defendant as the perpetrator. This witness was acquainted with defendant because defendant was a friend of the witness' granddaughter and had visited with her at the witness' home. The witness encountered defendant during the course of the crime and *West Page 848 defendant spoke to the witness, in essence telling him that the activity was none of his business. Defendant's requested jury charge is two-fold: defendant asked that the judge charge the jury concerning the likelihood of misidentification and the credibility of a witness who makes an identification. The judge's general charge dealt extensively with the assessment of credibility of a witness and also informed the jurors that they should consider a witness' ability to observe and the conditions under which the observation occurred. Defendant's requested charge need not have been given because it was covered in the general charge. C.Cr.P. art. 807.

[3] Defendant's second assignment of error is that he received an excessive sentence. The trial judge sentenced defendant to four years at hard labor for a crime which carries a maximum sentence of twelve years. Before pronouncing sentence, the judge determined that defendant had been placed on probation for a juvenile offense and sent to the Louisiana Training Institute; had been paroled from L.T.I., whereupon he committed another offense for which his parole was revoked; and he had then been returned to L.T.I. Under these circumstances, we are not prepared to say that four years is an excessive sentence for the crime of simple burglary. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1.

[4] Decree

[5] For the above reasons we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.

[6] AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 So. 2d 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-artis-la-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack