State v. Garrity

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Garrity

152 So. 77, 178 La. 541, 1933 La. LEXIS 1880

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 27, 1933

DocketNo. 32494.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 152 So. 77 (State v. Garrity) 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. Garrity, 152 So. 77, 178 La. 541, 1933 La. LEXIS 1880 (La. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The defendant has appealed from a conviction and a sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary for the crime of assault and robbery. He complains, in two bills of exception, that the district attorney said, in his opening statement to the jury, that the state intended to prove that, when Garrity was arrested, in Miami, Ariz., he asked the arresting officer what he wanted with him, and the officer replied, “I don’t want you, hut New Orleans wants you for a bank job,” and that Garrity replied, “Well, I guess you’ve got the right man.”

It is contended that Garrity’s statement to the officer who arrested him was a confession, and that the district attorney should not have disclosed to the jury, before proving that the alleged confession was made freely and voluntarily, that the state intended to offer the confession in evidence. The statement which Garrity is said to have made to the officer who arrested him was, substantially if not in fact, a confession. But, according to article 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the district attorney, in his opening statement to the jury, must explain not only the nature of the charge against the defendant, but also the evidence by which he expects to establish the same. State v. Ducre, 173 La. 438, 137 So. 745. And when the evidence, or a part of the evidence, by which the *543 district attorney intends to prove the charge against the defendant, is a confession made by the defendant, the district attorney must so inform the judge and jury in his opening statement. State v. Silsby, 176 La. 727, 146 So. 684; State v. Elmore, 177 La. 877, 149 So. 507. In both of those cases it was said that the opinions of the judges and law-writers on the subject in other jurisdictions were of no importance in Louisiana, because of the mandatory provisions of article 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In a motion for a new trial the defendant’s attorneys contended also that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the jury had failed to give the defendant the benefit of a reasonable doubt, or'of the presumption of innocence; but these complaints are merely that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt; and that is a question of which this court has not jurisdiction.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

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

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The defendant has appealed from a conviction and a sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary for the crime of assault and robbery. He complains, in two bills of exception, that the district attorney said, in his opening statement to the jury, that the state intended to prove that, when Garrity was arrested, in Miami, Ariz., he asked the arresting officer what he wanted with him, and the officer replied, “I don’t want you, hut New Orleans wants you for a bank job,” and that Garrity replied, “Well, I guess you’ve got the right man.”

It is contended that Garrity’s statement to the officer who arrested him was a confession, and that the district attorney should not have disclosed to the jury, before proving that the alleged confession was made freely and voluntarily, that the state intended to offer the confession in evidence. The statement which Garrity is said to have made to the officer who arrested him was, substantially if not in fact, a confession. But, according to article 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the district attorney, in his opening statement to the jury, must explain not only the nature of the charge against the defendant, but also the evidence by which he expects to establish the same. State v. Ducre, 173 La. 438, 137 So. 745. And when the evidence, or a part of the evidence, by which the *543 district attorney intends to prove the charge against the defendant, is a confession made by the defendant, the district attorney must so inform the judge and jury in his opening statement. State v. Silsby, 176 La. 727, 146 So. 684; State v. Elmore, 177 La. 877, 149 So. 507. In both of those cases it was said that the opinions of the judges and law-writers on the subject in other jurisdictions were of no importance in Louisiana, because of the mandatory provisions of article 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In a motion for a new trial the defendant’s attorneys contended also that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the jury had failed to give the defendant the benefit of a reasonable doubt, or'of the presumption of innocence; but these complaints are merely that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt; and that is a question of which this court has not jurisdiction.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 So. 77, 178 La. 541, 1933 La. LEXIS 1880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-garrity-la-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack