No. 52755 Precedential Processed

State v. Reeves

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 28, 1972 · 269 So. 2d 815

Cited by

State v. Rubens 83 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Soler 636 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Washington 614 So. 2d 711 La. 1993
State v. Washington 614 So. 2d 711 La. 1993
State v. Carney 476 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Kirkpatrick 443 So. 2d 546 La. 1983
State v. Williams 442 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. MacK 435 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Sheppard 350 So. 2d 615 La. 1977
State v. May 339 So. 2d 764 La. 1976

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Leming 217 La. 257
State v. Pierfax 158 La. 927

Opinion text

PER CURIAM. The defendant, Reeves, was convicted of armed robbery (La.R.S. 14:64) for which he was sentenced to fifteen years at the Louisiana State Penitentiary. He appeals his conviction and sentence based upon two bills of exceptions reserved and perfected during the proceedings. Bill of Exceptions No. 1 was reserved during the closing argument of the State. Defense counsel objected to a statement made by the district attorney on the grounds that it was improper and prejudicial in that “he offered and argued” his personal opinion concerning the credibility of the defendant. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling rejecting the objection. The remark by the district attorney “was nothing more than a denunciation of the defendant based upon the evidence which had been adduced at trial”. State v. Leming, 217 La. 257, 306 , 46 So.2d 262, 279 (1959); La.C.Cr.P. Art. 774. Bill of Exceptions No. 2 was reserved to the trial court’s action in limiting closing argument of defendant, after nearly one hour, to approximately five minutes more, although actually defense counsel was permitted to argue about ten minutes more. At that time, the defendant’s counsel had fully covered his case and had spoken almost twice as long as the prosecutor. All the matters pertaining to the conduct of the trial are within the sound discretion of the trial judge and rulings such as these will not be disturbed unless we find an apparent abuse of discretion. State v. Pierfax, 158 La. 927 , 105 So. 16 (1925); La.C.Cr.P. Art. 17. We find no abuse, nor is any prejudice shown by the record to have resulted. For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed. BARHAM and DIXON, JJ, concur.