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

In State v. Douglas, two defendants were convicted by jury of simple burglary and each sentenced to three years at hard labor. The court dismissed one defendant's appeal on joint motion and reviewed the other, noting no bills of exception in the record but an error patent on the face of the minutes showing sentence was imposed immediately after verdict without the delay required by law. The court annulled that sentence as void because Louisiana law (then R.S. 15:521) mandates a delay after conviction to allow further pleadings unless the defendant waives it, which the record did not show, and remanded for further proceedings while leaving the conviction undisturbed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved whether a non-union longshoreman, Clifton Senegal, was eligible for unemployment compensation benefits after losing his job due to a strike by the union at his employer's stevedoring operations. The Louisiana Supreme Court decided that Senegal was disqualified from receiving benefits under the state's Employment Security Law because his unemployment resulted from a labor dispute in which he was "interested." The court's reasoning centered on the fact that Senegal, despite not being a union member, received the same wages and benefits as union members, had his paychecks handled through the union, participated in union-administered funds that increased due to the strike, and would benefit from any wage increases won by the strikers, making him interested in the dispute's outcome.

labor & employment

In Bollinger v. Republic Petroleum Corporation, the plaintiff sought Supreme Court review of a Court of Appeal judgment in a dispute involving the defendant oil company. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the writ application, stating that the Court of Appeal judgment was correct. A dissent noted potential conflict with prior cases like Melancon v. Texas Co. The decision left the lower court ruling in place.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Robert E. Montgomery, who was charged by affidavit in Bossier City Court with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a second offense under R.S. 14:98. After conviction, he was sentenced as a second offender, but appealed on the ground that the affidavit failed to properly allege the prior conviction. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that although prior convictions are not an element of the crime itself, they must be specifically alleged in the charging document to justify enhanced penalties, to classify the offense as a misdemeanor or felony, and to allow the defendant notice to raise any defenses. The court ruled that the notation "Second Offense" was insufficient under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires details such as the time, court, and nature of the prior offense. The sentence as a second offender was therefore annulled, and the case was remanded for sentencing as a first offense only.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Louisiana State Bar Association petitioning for the disbarment of attorney Harold E. Powell based on allegations of professional misconduct, including misappropriating client funds provided to pay off existing mortgages, making misrepresentations to clients, and pleading guilty to a criminal offense involving moral turpitude over a period of about two years. Powell, who had relocated to Mississippi and stopped paying bar dues, declined to participate in the ethics committee hearings or respond to notices despite receiving them. After the appointment of counsel to represent the absent attorney, a formal hearing, and a commissioner's detailed report recommending disbarment, the court adopted the findings and ordered Powell's name stricken from the roll of attorneys with his license cancelled, determining that the violations evidenced a lack of moral fitness to practice law.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Moye, the defendant was charged under R.S. 14:285 with using obscene, indecent, and profane language and threats during an anonymous telephone conversation, a misdemeanor tried by a judge who found him guilty and imposed a $1000 fine plus costs or one year in jail in default of payment. On appeal, the defendant raised bills of exception challenging the denial of a directed verdict for insufficient evidence, the amendment of the bill of information after the close of the state's evidence, and the sentence. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that questions of evidentiary sufficiency are unreviewable questions of fact, that the amendment was authorized by statute and any objection was waived by failing to request a continuance, and that no evidence was properly brought up in the record for review. The court noted that the sentence was within statutory limits and that the remaining bill was abandoned.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether fees paid by a property owner to expert appraisers for work done in anticipation of an expropriation trial could be taxed as costs against the State of Louisiana, where the underlying case settled before trial and the experts never testified. The district court and Court of Appeal allowed the fees as costs under a compromise judgment requiring the Department of Highways to pay 'all costs of these proceedings,' but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed. The court held that only costs specifically authorized by statute may be taxed against a litigant, and no statute permits recovery of such expert fees when the witnesses do not testify in court. It rejected arguments that expropriation cases create an exception allowing broader recovery to make the landowner whole, noting that any expansion of recoverable costs is a matter for the legislature.

propertyprocedure

This case involved two defendants charged under Louisiana law with committing a crime against nature based on acts observed by police in a motel room; they were convicted by a jury and sentenced to 30 months in prison. On appeal, they raised multiple specifications of error concerning the trial court's refusal to produce a police report, admission of nude photographs and comic books, denial of requested jury instructions on the elements of the offense and entrapment, and the sufficiency of the evidence for conviction. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, ruling that no proper foundation had been laid for the police report as it amounted to a fishing expedition without shown contradictions, that objections to evidence lacked stated grounds and were not preserved, that the general jury charge adequately covered the requested instructions, and that some evidence of unnatural carnal copulation existed to support the verdict. The court emphasized procedural requirements for objections and bills of exception under state law and declined to reweigh evidence or witness credibility.

criminal lawprocedure

In Gebbia v. City of New Orleans, a married couple sued the City and its insurer for injuries the wife sustained at a municipal auditorium during a carnival ball, with the wife claiming damages for pain, suffering, and $120 in lost wages from her job as a secretary. The district court awarded the wife the lost wages as community property, but the Court of Appeal deleted that portion of the judgment on its own motion, concluding that only the husband as head of the community could sue to recover community earnings. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the award, reasoning that under the Code of Civil Procedure a wife's authority to sue for community rights when authorized by her husband is presumed and can be challenged only by a timely dilatory exception of lack of procedural capacity, which was never filed in this case.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Charles Adjmi being convicted in municipal court for violating a New Orleans ordinance by selling an electrical appliance (a travel iron) that failed to meet required safety standards under Articles 5028 and 5029 of the building code. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence after reviewing challenges to the ordinance's vagueness and the affidavit's sufficiency. The court held that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague because it incorporated objective standards such as those listed by Underwriters’ Laboratories to define approved methods. It further concluded that the affidavit provided adequate notice by specifying the date, time, place, ordinance number, and item involved. The core reasoning was that municipal ordinance violations are not classified as crimes under Louisiana law and thus do not trigger the same constitutional protections applicable to state criminal prosecutions.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Washington, the defendant was charged under R.S. 14:98 with operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a fourth offender based on three prior convictions from 1957 and 1958. The district court sustained a plea of prescription and dismissed the prosecution, applying the general six-year statute of limitations in R.S. 15:7.2 to the prior convictions. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that prior convictions are not a material ingredient of the current offense but serve only to enhance the penalty for the latest violation. The court reasoned that the specific statute contains no limitation on the use of prior offenses for enhancement, unlike the general habitual offender law, and the legislature's omission reflects the gravity of repeated drunk driving.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Sanford, the defendant was convicted of theft under Louisiana law and sentenced to six years in prison, then appealed the conviction and sentence. The Louisiana Supreme Court observed that no bills of exception had been reserved at trial, limiting review to errors patent on the face of the record, which includes only the caption, indictment, arraignment, plea, jury impaneling, verdict, and judgment. Examination of those materials revealed no such errors, and the defendant's arguments regarding the right to dismiss counsel and represent himself were not properly raised or documented in the record. The court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence, noting that constitutional claims require proper procedural presentation to be considered on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Wilson Simien for attempted aggravated rape, based in part on an oral confession obtained after more than 48 hours of intermittent questioning by police following his arrest. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. It held that the State had not affirmatively shown the confession was freely and voluntarily made, given the circumstances of prolonged interrogation without food and other factors. The court also ruled that the trial judge erred in denying the defense access to inspect a written statement made by the defendant that was in the prosecutor's possession.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by an employee who fell while grading onions at the defendant's plant and sought total and permanent disability benefits due to a cervical sprain allegedly causing substantial pain that prevented her from resuming her prior work. The trial court awarded benefits, but the Court of Appeal reversed, finding insufficient evidence of disability. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she could not perform her former duties without appreciable pain, as the medical testimony was nearly unanimous that she could return to work and her own testimony did not establish the required level of impairment. The court treated the matter as a factual determination resolved against the claimant based on the record.

labor & employment