State v. Watson
State v. Watson, 170 So. 2d 107 (La. 1964).
Cited by
Distinguished in 1
- A.S. v. M.C. 685 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
- As v. MC 685 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
- State v. Calloway 324 So. 2d 801 La. 1976
- State v. Pickett 325 So. 2d 252 La. 1975
- State v. Garner 229 So. 2d 719 La. 1969
- State v. Young 193 So. 2d 243 La. 1966
- State v. Young 193 So. 2d 243 La. 1966
- State v. Johnson 186 So. 2d 565 La. 1966
- State v. Marcell 183 So. 2d 341 La. 1966
- State v. Brown 180 So. 2d 410 La. 1965
- State v. Lee 172 So. 2d 678 La. 1965
- State v. Lee 172 So. 2d 678 La. 1965
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Borde 209 La. 905
Opinion text
McCALEB, J. (concurring). I subscribe to the ruling on Bills Nos. 1 and 7 and concur in the result as to Bills. Nos. 2 through 6 and Bills Nos. 8 through 12. I am not in accord with the reason given, by the Court for its ruling with respect to. Bills Nos. 2 through 6, since the State has. admitted in its brief that the accused was. under arrest at the time the statements were made in his presence by certain persons to. the police officers, who were allowed to. repeat their statements to the jury, over-objection. Nonetheless, although the trial judge has not favored us with per curiams. for his rulings, I think the objections to. the testimony of the police officers were properly overruled as the statements of these persons, having been given within two or three hours of the commission of the-offense, formed part of the res gestae. In any event, no reversible error was committed and the substantial rights of the-accused were not prejudiced inasmuch as. the parties making the statements were-called as State witnesses and gave substantially the same statements which the-officers were permitted to repeat before the-jury. See R.S. 15 :557. *114 As to Bills Nos. 8 through 12, I think the ■objections of the State were correctly sustained (although here, again, the judge has given no reason for his rulings) on the •ground that defense counsel was attempting to prove lack of chastity of the victim in a rape case, which is immaterial, except where •consent is pleaded as a defense. State v. Borde, 209 La. 905 , 25 So.2d 736 .