State v. Bowers

256 So. 2d 435, 260 La. 436, 1972 La. LEXIS 5564
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJanuary 4, 1972
DocketNo. 51671
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 256 So. 2d 435 (State v. Bowers) 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. Bowers, 256 So. 2d 435, 260 La. 436, 1972 La. LEXIS 5564 (La. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Levon Charles Bowers was tried by a jury and convicted of the crime of simple burglary. He was sentenced to serve seven years in the State penitentiary at hard labor. On this appeal the accused is relying on one bill of exceptions to obtain a reversal of the conviction.

By this bill, the accused contends the bill of information is “substantially defective”, because it describes the burglary was committed “of a business.” It is suggested that this did not meet the requirements of the short form bill charging simple burglary (C.Cr.P. art. 465) because it failed to charge that the accused had burglarized a “structure”, La.R.S. 14:62, the crime here charged. We note in this regard no bill of particulars was requested prior to trial.

The bill charges the defendant “did commit simple burglary of a business in Bastrop, Louisiana, known as the West Madison Garage and the property of John Pugh Anderson.”

We find the trial court was correct to hold that the bill of information as written informed the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation and therefore the constitutional requirement was met. (La.Const. art. 1, sect. 10). The description of the premises burglarized known as “West Madison Garage” connotes in ordinary language a structure devoted to the garage business. (See State v. Wright, 254 La. 521, 225 So.2d 201 (1969).

The defendant additionally suggests there was no evidence of intent .to commit [439]*439a theft or forcible felony, an essential element of the crime. La.R.S. 14:62. We find no merit. The owner of the premises testified as to gauges screwed off welding tanks, and he found tools scattered. The sufficiency of this evidence to prove intent to commit a theft is a jury question.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Palmer
305 So. 2d 513 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1974)
State v. Michelli
301 So. 2d 577 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1974)
State v. Clark
288 So. 2d 612 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1974)
State v. Edwards
287 So. 2d 518 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
256 So. 2d 435, 260 La. 436, 1972 La. LEXIS 5564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bowers-la-1972.