State v. Dangerfield

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Dangerfield

451 So. 2d 195, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9037

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 4, 1984

DocketNo. 16579-KW

StatusPublished

This text of 451 So. 2d 195 (State v. Dangerfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Dangerfield, 451 So. 2d 195, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9037 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

By this writ application, the defendant seeks review of his conviction of driving while intoxicated, second offense, in the Second Judicial District Court. The application assigns as error the finding of the [196]*196district court that the state proved the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt and asserts that a proper foundation was not laid for admission of a blood test into evidence, the defendant was not identified as the person charged, and the defendant was denied the right to effectively cross-examine the witness who performed the blood test. The assigned errors are argued at some length in the application and much reliance is placed on what the transcript of the trial might disclose.

It is impossible to review the merits of the assigned errors because the application does not contain a copy of the transcript of the trial. Further, the application does not comply in several respects with the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal.

The application does not comply with Rule 4 — 5(f), (g), (h), and (i) in that it does not contain a copy of the judgment, order or ruling complained of; a copy of the judge’s reasons for judgment, a copy of each pleading on which the judgment was founded, or a copy of the pertinent court minutes. The application does not comply with Rule 4-2 in that it does not reflect that notice of intention to apply for a writ was given to the judge whose ruling is complained of; nor does it comply with Rule 4-3 in that it does not contain an order of the judge fixing the time for filing the writ application in the Court of Appeal.

A review of the sufficiency of the evidence and evidentiary rulings is impossible without a transcript of the proceedings. In order to make a showing warranting the exercise of the appellate court’s supervisory jurisdiction, an application for a writ of review based on complaints of insufficiency of the evidence or of evidentiary errors should contain a transcript of the testimony.

Since the defendant has failed to provide a complete application and to make an adequate showing for the granting of a writ of review, the application is denied.

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

ORDER

By this writ application, the defendant seeks review of his conviction of driving while intoxicated, second offense, in the Second Judicial District Court. The application assigns as error the finding of the [196]*196district court that the state proved the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt and asserts that a proper foundation was not laid for admission of a blood test into evidence, the defendant was not identified as the person charged, and the defendant was denied the right to effectively cross-examine the witness who performed the blood test. The assigned errors are argued at some length in the application and much reliance is placed on what the transcript of the trial might disclose.

It is impossible to review the merits of the assigned errors because the application does not contain a copy of the transcript of the trial. Further, the application does not comply in several respects with the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal.

The application does not comply with Rule 4 — 5(f), (g), (h), and (i) in that it does not contain a copy of the judgment, order or ruling complained of; a copy of the judge’s reasons for judgment, a copy of each pleading on which the judgment was founded, or a copy of the pertinent court minutes. The application does not comply with Rule 4-2 in that it does not reflect that notice of intention to apply for a writ was given to the judge whose ruling is complained of; nor does it comply with Rule 4-3 in that it does not contain an order of the judge fixing the time for filing the writ application in the Court of Appeal.

A review of the sufficiency of the evidence and evidentiary rulings is impossible without a transcript of the proceedings. In order to make a showing warranting the exercise of the appellate court’s supervisory jurisdiction, an application for a writ of review based on complaints of insufficiency of the evidence or of evidentiary errors should contain a transcript of the testimony.

Since the defendant has failed to provide a complete application and to make an adequate showing for the granting of a writ of review, the application is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 So. 2d 195, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 9037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dangerfield-lactapp-1984.