State v. Calvin
1945 La. LEXIS 932, 24 So.2d 467, 209 La. 257 (1945)
Rule of Law:
Introducing evidence of a different, non-jury triable offense to a jury, even if the charge is later abandoned, constitutes prejudicial error, and a person's bare hands or teeth are not considered 'dangerous weapons' for the crime of aggravated battery under Louisiana's Criminal Code.
Facts:
- On June 7, 1945, an affidavit was filed charging Carey Lee Calvin with hitting and biting Andrew DeCarlo and disturbing the peace.
- On July 9, 1945, a bill of information was filed, charging Carey Lee Calvin with aggravated battery (committed with a dangerous weapon) and with disturbing the peace (Count 2).
- During a scuffle with Andrew DeCarlo, Carey Lee Calvin bit him on his left side.
Procedural Posture:
- An affidavit was filed charging Carey Lee Calvin with hitting and biting Andrew DeCarlo and disturbing the peace.
- A bill of information was subsequently filed, charging Carey Lee Calvin with aggravated battery and disturbing the peace.
- During the trial, after evidence was presented on both counts but prior to arguments, the Assistant District Attorney moved to abandon the disturbing the peace charge, and the trial court instructed the jury to disregard it.
- The jury returned a verdict of 'Guilty as charged' against Carey Lee Calvin.
- Carey Lee Calvin's counsel filed a motion in the trial court to set aside the verdict, arguing it was unresponsive, illegible, and unclear on which charge the defendant was found guilty, and alternatively, moved for a new trial.
- The trial court imposed a sentence of seven years at hard labor in the State Penitentiary on Carey Lee Calvin.
- Carey Lee Calvin requested and was granted a motion for appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
- A bill of exception related to the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial was presented to the district court judge six days after the sentence was imposed and the appeal was granted; the judge refused to sign it as untimely.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does presenting evidence to a jury on a charge that is triable by a judge alone, even if that charge is later abandoned, constitute prejudicial error requiring a new trial? 2. Can a person's bare hands or teeth be classified as a 'dangerous weapon' for the offense of aggravated battery under Louisiana's Criminal Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennon
Yes, presenting evidence to a jury on a charge triable by a judge alone, even if later abandoned, constitutes prejudicial error. No, a person's bare hands or teeth cannot be classified as a 'dangerous weapon' for aggravated battery. The court found errors 'patent on the face' of the record, even without a properly preserved bill of exception. The charge of disturbing the peace was triable by the judge alone, and it was prejudicial error to include this count in the bill of information and allow evidence relating to it to be presented to the jury. This allowed proof of a different crime, which would logically prejudice the jurors' minds against the defendant, violating the principle that a defendant should be convicted only by evidence related to the charged offense. The court also noted, for guidance on remand, that the trial judge's instruction that a person's teeth could be a dangerous weapon was incorrect. Article 34 of the Criminal Code defines aggravated battery as 'a battery committed with a dangerous weapon,' and Article 2 defines a 'dangerous weapon' as an 'inanimate instrumentality' calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm. The court clarified that while human anatomy parts can be dangerous, there must be proof of an inanimate instrumentality for a charge of assault 'with a dangerous weapon' to stand.
Analysis:
This case emphasizes the importance of maintaining strict separation between different types of offenses and evidence in a jury trial, particularly when one charge is not jury-triable. It highlights due process concerns regarding jury prejudice and the need for courts to interpret criminal statutes, like the definition of 'dangerous weapon,' strictly according to legislative intent. The ruling ensures that defendants are not convicted of one crime based on prejudicial evidence of another, reinforcing fair trial principles and influencing how prosecutors structure multi-count indictments or information.
