60149 Precedential Reversed and remanded Processed

State v. Williams

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed December 19, 1977 · 352 So. 2d 1295

Cited by

State v. Magee 809 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Roberts 683 So. 2d 1335 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Gamble 631 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Wolfe 630 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
State v. Chatman 599 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Parker 536 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. McCullough 503 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Hutchins 502 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Wysinger 479 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Bernard 441 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Cann 392 So. 2d 381 La. 1981
State v. Frentz 354 So. 2d 1007 La. 1978

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Clark 338 So. 2d 690
State v. Frederick 340 So. 2d 1353
State v. Lee 340 So. 2d 1339
State v. Jackson 352 So. 2d 195

Opinion text

352 So.2d 1295 (1977) STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Isaac WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant. No. 60149. Supreme Court of Louisiana. December 19, 1977. *1296 Paul A. Bonin, New Orleans, for appellant. William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Vincent Paciera, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee. TATE, Justice. The defendant was charged and convicted of two counts of distribution of heroin, La.R.S. 40:966, and sentenced to concurrent life sentences at hard labor. On his appeal, we find merit to his Assignment of Error No. 2. We therefore reverse. The defendant was convicted of distributions (sales) occurring on November 1 and November 2. By Assignment 2, the defendant correctly contends that over his objection the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant and prejudicial evidence of two other offenses of November 8 and 13. These extraneous offenses were admitted on the state's contention that they were admissible to prove intent, guilty knowledge, or system. La.R.S. 15:445, 446. However, reversible error resulted from the prejudice occasioned by evidence of them, since the offenses were not admissible for any of the purposes sought: (1) The distribution offense is a crime requiring only general criminal intent. Such intent is established by mere proof of voluntary distribution. La.R.S. 40:966. The extraneous crimes were inadmissible to prove intent. State v. Clark, 338 So.2d 690 (La.1976). (2) No defense is raised that the act was done without knowledge of the illegality of the substance. Therefore, "guilty knowledge" is not a genuine matter at issue in this prosecution, and the prejudicial evidence of the extraneous offenses was inadmissible for such purpose. State v. Frederick, 340 So.2d 1353 (La.1976). (3) The extraneous offenses were not admissible to prove system: In the first place, even if proof of system was relevant to any issue in the present prosecution, these onlysomewhat similar other drug offenses were not so peculiarly distinctive as to indicate they were the work of the same person. State v. Frederick, 340 So.2d 1353 (La.1976); State v. Lee, 340 So.2d 1339 (La.1976). More important, however, they were inadmissible because system was not relevant to prove any fact of consequence (e. g., identity) to the accused's present innocence or guilt (i. e., independent of the inadmissible purpose to infer that the accused committed the present crimes because he had committed the other ones). State v. Jackson, 352 So.2d 195 (La.1977) and many decisions therein cited. Accordingly, we reverse the convictions and sentences, and we remand for new trial(s) in accordance with law. REVERSED AND REMANDED. SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., dissent.