 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Guillory3/11/1998
until the witness has been sworn, and the credibility of a witness may not be supported unless it has been attacked. . . .
It is argued that the State, in an attempt to support the credibility of Jeffery Tezeno before he was called as a witness, violated the provision of Article 607. However, a violation of Article 607 will not result in automatic reversal of a conviction. "An erroneous trial court ruling on allowing the corroboration of a witness before his credibility is at issue is not reversible error unless the defendant alleged or showed how he was prejudiced by the Judge's ruling." State v. Joe, 502 So.2d 270, 272 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1987), citing State v. Boyd, 359 So.2d 931 (La. 1978); State v. Passman, 345 So.2d 874 (La. 1977); and State v. Carney, 476 So.2d 364 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1985). Even if the Defendant were able to prove that Jeffery Tezeno lied to the police and to his attorney about the extent of his involvement in the murders, the Defendant would still have to contend with the fact that he made a lengthy videotaped confession of his involvement in the crimes and that he made several additional incriminating statements to others about his own involvement. All that the jury had to decide was whether the defendant was guilty of three murders; the culpability of Jeffery Tezeno was not at issue. Therefore, we find that the error, if any, in admitting the testimony of Ms. Oubre cannot result in reversal of the Defendant's conviction.
ARGUMENT NO. 5 Ä ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 20
The Defendant contends the trial court should have suppressed all evidence derived from his illegal arrest. The Defendant argues that since the police had no probable cause to detain him or arrest him, that all fruit of his illegal arrest should be suppressed; this includes not only the evidence seized but also all statements given by Mr. Guillory. This issue is identical to the previous pretrial writ application in State v. Guillory, 95-482 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/29/95), writ denied, 95-1973 (La. 9/22/95); 660 So.2d 483.
In the case of State v. Simms, 571 So.2d 145 (La. 1990), the Louisiana Supreme Court clarified the issue of when an arrest occurs:
An arrest occurs when the circumstances indicate an intent by the police to effect an extended restraint on the liberty of the accused, rather than at the precise time the officer tells the accused he is under arrest. La. Code Crim.P. art. 201; State v. Rebstock, 418 So.2d 1306 (La. 1982).
Id. at 148.
The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that "any assessment as to whether police conduct amounts to a seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment must take into account `all the circumstances surrounding the incident' in each individual case." Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988). A seizure occurs "only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave." Simms, 571 at 148 (citations omitted).
In the present case, the Defendant was not formally arrested until he reached the police station and confessed to the triple murders, but he was detained after he lied to Lieutenant Lewis and claimed that he had not seen Jeffery Tezeno in three months. The court in Simms stated that having determined that a defendant was under arrest, the next consideration is whether the police at that point had the necessary probable cause to arrest the defendant. Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to justify a man of ordinary caution in believing that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. Id. The determi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|