State v. Hayes

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Hayes

326 So. 2d 500, 1976 La. LEXIS 5134

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 19, 1976

DocketNo. 56814

StatusPublished

This text of 326 So. 2d 500 (State v. Hayes) 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. Hayes, 326 So. 2d 500, 1976 La. LEXIS 5134 (La. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

CALOGERO, Justice.

In 1963 the defendant, Milo Hayes, along with three other inmates of the Louisiana State Penitentiary were charged with the crime of aggravated crime against nature allegedly perpetrated against another inmate. After a trial by jury the defendants were all convicted of simple crime against nature. No appeal was perfected from this conviction. In June of 197S the defendant Hayes, following a ha-beas corpus hearing in the district court, was granted an out-of-time appeal. Only one bill of exception was reserved and perfected for consideration in connection with this appeal.

Defendant Hayes contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial on the basis of total lack of evidence presented at the trial.

In State v. Kennedy, 255 La. 295, 230 So.2d 818 (1970), this Court held that when it was alleged that there was a total lack of evidence of the offense charged this Court would review the legality of the conviction if the evidence was properly made part of the record. Counsel in the case before us has not specified which element or elements of the offense remain unproved. We therefore construe the allegation as directed toward each of the required elements of the crime. Our review of the record indicates that there was some evidence to prove each element of the crime.

This assignment of error lacks merit.

Furthermore, we have examined the record for errors discoverable by a reading of the pleadings and proceedings and find none. C.Cr.P. Art. 920.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of Milo Hayes is affirmed.

SUMMERS, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.

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

CALOGERO, Justice.

In 1963 the defendant, Milo Hayes, along with three other inmates of the Louisiana State Penitentiary were charged with the crime of aggravated crime against nature allegedly perpetrated against another inmate. After a trial by jury the defendants were all convicted of simple crime against nature. No appeal was perfected from this conviction. In June of 197S the defendant Hayes, following a ha-beas corpus hearing in the district court, was granted an out-of-time appeal. Only one bill of exception was reserved and perfected for consideration in connection with this appeal.

Defendant Hayes contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial on the basis of total lack of evidence presented at the trial.

In State v. Kennedy, 255 La. 295, 230 So.2d 818 (1970), this Court held that when it was alleged that there was a total lack of evidence of the offense charged this Court would review the legality of the conviction if the evidence was properly made part of the record. Counsel in the case before us has not specified which element or elements of the offense remain unproved. We therefore construe the allegation as directed toward each of the required elements of the crime. Our review of the record indicates that there was some evidence to prove each element of the crime.

This assignment of error lacks merit.

Furthermore, we have examined the record for errors discoverable by a reading of the pleadings and proceedings and find none. C.Cr.P. Art. 920.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of Milo Hayes is affirmed.

SUMMERS, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 So. 2d 500, 1976 La. LEXIS 5134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hayes-la-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack