State v. Robinson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Robinson

333 So. 2d 923, 1976 La. LEXIS 4224

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 21, 1976

DocketNo. 57564

StatusPublished

This text of 333 So. 2d 923 (State v. Robinson) 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. Robinson, 333 So. 2d 923, 1976 La. LEXIS 4224 (La. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

DIXON, Justice.

The defendant, Donald Robinson, was charged by bill of information with the crime of armed robbery, in violation of R. S. 14:64. After a jury trial on November 22, 1974 he was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. On appeal he relies on three assignments of error.¹

Assignments of Error Nos. 1 and 2

In these assignments the defendant urges this court to extend the right of discovery in criminal cases. In a pretrial motion for a bill of particulars and prayer for oyer, defendant requested copies of confessions, both written and oral, copies of witnesses’ statements, copies of ballistics reports, a list of the State’s witnesses and other details of the State’s case. The State answered that it had no written confessions and was not required to answer further; the trial judge ruled that the State’s answers were sufficient.

No error is shown. The defendant cannot obtain by bill of particulars pretrial discovery of the State’s evidence. State v. Ball, 328 So.2d 81 (La.1976); State v. Kado, 300 So.2d 461 (La. 1974).

Defendant in this case 'merely argues that liberal discovery is the better practice. This State has not adopted liberal discovery in criminal cases. However, this court has extended the right of pretrial discovery of the State’s evidence in cases where failure to do so might seriously handicap the defense. See e. g. State v. Woodruff, 281 So.2d 95 (La.1973). No such showing has been made in the instant case.

Assignments of Error Nos. 1 and 2 are without merit.

[924]*924 Assignment of Error No. 3

The defendant contends that the trial judge erred in ruling admissible certain testimony by the victim and his twin brother about the return of the victim’s rings and their introduction into evidence. The rings were taken from the victim by the robbers, and were clearly relevant evidence of the crime, and admissible. The basis of the objections is not clear.

This assignment is without merit.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

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

DIXON, Justice.

The defendant, Donald Robinson, was charged by bill of information with the crime of armed robbery, in violation of R. S. 14:64. After a jury trial on November 22, 1974 he was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. On appeal he relies on three assignments of error.¹

Assignments of Error Nos. 1 and 2

In these assignments the defendant urges this court to extend the right of discovery in criminal cases. In a pretrial motion for a bill of particulars and prayer for oyer, defendant requested copies of confessions, both written and oral, copies of witnesses’ statements, copies of ballistics reports, a list of the State’s witnesses and other details of the State’s case. The State answered that it had no written confessions and was not required to answer further; the trial judge ruled that the State’s answers were sufficient.

No error is shown. The defendant cannot obtain by bill of particulars pretrial discovery of the State’s evidence. State v. Ball, 328 So.2d 81 (La.1976); State v. Kado, 300 So.2d 461 (La. 1974).

Defendant in this case 'merely argues that liberal discovery is the better practice. This State has not adopted liberal discovery in criminal cases. However, this court has extended the right of pretrial discovery of the State’s evidence in cases where failure to do so might seriously handicap the defense. See e. g. State v. Woodruff, 281 So.2d 95 (La.1973). No such showing has been made in the instant case.

Assignments of Error Nos. 1 and 2 are without merit.

[924]*924 Assignment of Error No. 3

The defendant contends that the trial judge erred in ruling admissible certain testimony by the victim and his twin brother about the return of the victim’s rings and their introduction into evidence. The rings were taken from the victim by the robbers, and were clearly relevant evidence of the crime, and admissible. The basis of the objections is not clear.

This assignment is without merit.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 So. 2d 923, 1976 La. LEXIS 4224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robinson-la-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack