Frank W. HAWTHORNE

This case is an appeal from Robert Fox's conviction for the murder of Ellis Varnado, whom he was found to have waylaid, robbed, and killed with a pipe, resulting in a death sentence after a jury trial. The defendant raised numerous bills of exception challenging trial procedures, such as the excusal of a prospective juror, the denial of a witness list or sequestration enforcement, admission of a morgue photograph identified by the victim's brother, limits on cross-examination about other suspects, the admissibility of the defendant's confession under Escobedo and Miranda standards, search and seizure evidence, a motion for mistrial, and a requested special jury charge. The court examined each bill under state procedural rules and prior case law, finding no abuse of discretion, no prejudice to the defendant, and no basis for reversal on questions of law, and therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

Dominic Angelo was charged in Orleans Parish Juvenile Court with two misdemeanors—contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile and indecent behavior with a juvenile—after officers obtained an oral admission from him at his workplace following his arrest. He was convicted and sentenced, and on appeal he argued that the admission was inadmissible because he had not been advised of his right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona, and that the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of the juvenile. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that Miranda's requirement to inform suspects of the right to appointed counsel applies only to felonies and does not extend to misdemeanor cases. The court reasoned that state law has never provided a right to court-appointed counsel for misdemeanors, that Miranda addressed felony prosecutions, and that imposing such formalities on routine misdemeanor investigations would be impractical given the volume of minor offenses. The court also upheld the trial judge's ruling sustaining the state's objection to questions about the juvenile's prior sexual history as irrelevant and harassing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a tort action in which plaintiff Alton J. Tassin sought damages for eye injuries from flashburns allegedly caused by flashes from a broken electrical service line under the control of defendant Louisiana Power & Light Company. The district court awarded plaintiff $4600 in damages, the Court of Appeal affirmed, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The court found evidence in the record supporting the trial court's conclusion that the power line caused the injuries, based on the timing of symptom onset (a few hours after the incident, consistent with medical testimony) rather than an earlier welding exposure. It also held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was correctly applied because the cause of the line's fall was unknown and electricity is a dangerous instrumentality requiring great care. The awards for pain, suffering, medical bills, and lost income were upheld as within the trial court's discretion.

torts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff who suffered a whiplash-type neck injury in an automobile accident, leading to ongoing pain, symptoms, and permanent limitations. The trial court jury awarded $10,000 in damages, but the Court of Appeal reduced it to $5,500 by categorizing the injury as moderate rather than evaluating its specific effects. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the reduction and reinstated the original award, holding that appellate courts must respect the trier of fact's discretion in assessing damages based on the particular facts and circumstances of each case rather than injury classifications like severe, moderate, or mild. The court emphasized that the record did not show an abuse of that discretion by the jury.

torts & liability

In State v. Andrus, defendants Crowell Andrus and Aaron Andrus were convicted by a jury of theft of cattle under Louisiana law after a witness reported seeing their light blue pickup truck near a dead calf on the highway at night, leading officers to stop the truck and discover fresh meat inside, followed by a consented search of the defendants' barn showing recent butchering. The defendants moved to suppress the meat and other evidence, claiming an invalid arrest and illegal searches, and also challenged the indictment's sufficiency for not naming the calf's owner. The court reviewed the detailed facts of the investigation, including plain-view observations, voluntary consent to searches, and tire tracks and other physical evidence linking the defendants to the scene, while addressing precedents on indictments for animal theft.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a wife's efforts to enforce a January 1967 divorce judgment ordering her ex-husband to pay $400 monthly in child support for their four minor children. After the husband failed to pay the February installment, she filed a rule for contempt and an executory judgment; the trial court continued the hearing twice for notice reasons, ultimately heard the matter on March 6 after the husband received notice, found him in willful contempt for nonpayment and nonappearance, and sentenced him to ten days in parish prison while awarding the $400. The husband challenged the sufficiency of service and notice under local district court rules and attempted to file late exceptions, but the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it could not take judicial notice of unprovided district court rules and that the trial judge properly enforced his court's filing requirements.

family lawprocedure