From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Holland

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Jul 1, 1974
297 So. 2d 413 (La. 1974)

Opinion

No. 54610.

July 1, 1974.

APPEAL FROM NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF RAPIDES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE JULES L. DAVISON, JR., J.

Dan E. Melichar, Gravel, Roy Burnes, Alexandria, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edwin O. Ware, Dist. Atty., Edwards E. Roberts, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.


The defendant was convicted of simple burglary, La.R.S. 14:65, and sentenced to five years at hard labor. In urging reversal, the defendant relies upon a bill of exceptions taken to the admission of three photographs taken of the victim immediately after the robbery.

The victim was the sole witness to the robbery. She testified that the defendant had grabbed her from behind on the head and throat. The photographs showed bruises allegedly so sustained and were corroborative of her testimony that force and intimidation had been used to commit the robbery, an essential ingredient of the crime. They were not gruesome or unusually dramatic.

We cannot say the trial court erred in finding that their probative value outweighed their prejudicial effect. See State v. Gibson, 271 So.2d 868 (La. 1973). We therefore find no merit to the bill.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Holland

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Jul 1, 1974
297 So. 2d 413 (La. 1974)
Case details for

State v. Holland

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF LOUISIANA, APPELLEE, v. CHARLIE HOLLAND, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: Jul 1, 1974

Citations

297 So. 2d 413 (La. 1974)

Citing Cases

State v. Robinson

Thus, the photographs corroborated his testimony that the defendant used force to commit the armed robbery,…

State v. Overton

Their probative value is established, but their prejudicial effect is questionable. State v. Holland, 297…