56338 Precedential Processed

State v. House

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed October 1, 1975 · 320 So. 2d 181

Cited by

State v. Stanfield 137 So. 3d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Freddie L. Burton, Jr. AKA Freddie L. Burton, AKA Freddie … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Burton 64 So. 3d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Watson 609 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Payne 540 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Burch 490 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. McCullom 480 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Woodard 387 So. 2d 1066 La. 1980
State v. Sheppard 350 So. 2d 615 La. 1977

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Nelson 306 So. 2d 745
State v. Navarre 302 So. 2d 273
298 So. 2d 277 not in our corpus
State v. Tarrance 252 La. 396
State v. Simien 248 La. 323

Opinion text

320 So.2d 181 (1975) STATE of Louisiana v. Billy HOUSE. No. 56338. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 1, 1975. William E. Woodward, Clinton, for defendant-appellant. *182 William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leon A. Picou, Jr., Dist. Atty., Cynthia Picou Branton, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee. SUMMERS, Justice. Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana. On January 13, 1974, after a trial by jury, he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to ten years at hard labor. The District Attorney then filed a bill against the defendant under the multiple offender law. After a hearing, the trial judge annulled the ten-year sentence and sentenced the defendant to one hundred years at hard labor. The defendant reserved five assignments of error. Only one is briefed; the others are, therefore, considered abandoned. State v. Nelson, 306 So.2d 745 (La.1975); State v. Navarre, 302 So.2d 273 (La.1974). As the State was introducing evidence to substantiate defendant's alleged prior convictions, the defendant stated that he did "not wish to admit he is the same individual on the documents offered by the D.A." The State then called Aven Dearman, a fingerprint expert employed by the Louisiana State Police Bureau of Identification. He compared the past fingerprint records of defendant with fingerprints taken from the defendant in court and positively identified all as belonging to defendant. When the State introduced the in-court fingerprints, the defendant reserved this assignment of error. The defendant, who did not take the stand to testify, argues that his privilege against self-incrimination was violated when he was ordered to have his fingerprints taken in open court. Although he acknowledges that fingerprint evidence is a non-testimonial means of identification, he argues that taking them during trial has the same effect as defendant being forced to take the stand and admit he is guilty of the offense charged. Here the necessity of identifying his prints is a crucial link, he contends, without which identification the State cannot prove its case. Defendant's privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by taking his fingerprints in open court. United States ex rel. O'Halloran v. Rundle, 384 F. 2d 997 (3rd Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 860 , 89 S.Ct. 138 , 21 L.Ed.2d 128 . See also Ballard v. State, 487 S.W.2d 724 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), State v. Stuard, 104 Ariz. 305 , 452 P.2d 98 (1969). Requiring a defendant to supply evidence of his identity does not violate the Fifth Amendment. La.R.S. 15:529.1(F); State v. Jackson, 298 So.2d 277 (La.1974); State v. Tarrance, 252 La. 396 , 211 So.2d 304 (1968), cert. denied 393 U.S. 1038 , 89 S.Ct. 662 , 21 L.Ed.2d 586 (1968); State v. Simien, 248 La. 323 , 178 So.2d 266 (1965); 8 Wigmore on Evidence ¶¶2263, 2265 (McNaughton Rev.1961), 28 ALR ¶d 1115 ¶14. The conviction and sentence are affirmed.