When appellee applied for the writ originally, the district court ordered that he be granted an out of time appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court in order to permit the state court to rule first on the constitutional issues presented. Lawrence v. Henderson, E.D.La. 1970, 318 F. Supp. 230. After the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed appellee's conviction, State v. Lawrence, 1971, 260 La. 169, 255 So.2d 729, he again applied to the district court, which ordered this time that the writ would issue unless the state chose to vacate the conviction and retry appellee within forty-five days. Lawrence v. Henderson, E.D.La. 1972, 344 F. Supp. 1287. The facts which led to the conviction are summarized in the district court's opinion:
Lawrence v. Henderson, 318 F. Supp. 230 (E.D.La. 1970). After the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction, State v. Lawrence, 260 La. 169, 255 So.2d 729 (1971), petitioner reurged his federal habeas claim and moved to show cause why he should not be released. Arguments were heard by this Court on March 1, 1972.
• prevent "serious personal inconvenience to jurors and witnesses which would result from interruptions and delay once the jury had been selected and the trial had commenced," id. ; and• "avoid the necessity of declaring a mistrial because the jury has been exposed to unconstitutional evidence, with resulting repetitive litiga[t]ion," State v. Lawrence , 260 La. 169, 255 So. 2d 729 (1971). ¶48 Similarly, we insist that motions to suppress "should state with reasonable specificity the legal grounds upon which the motions are based."
An unspecified objection does not suffice. State v. Brogdon, 426 So.2d 158 (La., 1983); State v. Williams, 362 So.2d 530 (La., 1978); State v. Keys, 328 So.2d 154 (La., 1976); State v. Lawrence, 260 La. 169, 255 So.2d 729 (1971); State v. Royal, 255 La. 617, 232 So.2d 292 (1970). Lewis is precluded from arguing the unconstitutionality of the search and seizure; any objection was waived by the failure to file a motion to suppress.
Otherwise, he is deemed to have waived any objection to its admission in evidence based on an infirmity in the search and seizure. State v. Jones, 340 So.2d 563 (La. 1976); State v. Keys, 328 So.2d 154 (La. 1976); State v. Womack, 283 So.2d 708 (La. 1973); State v. Cormier, 272 So.2d 686 (La. 1973); State v. Cryer, 262 La. 575, 263 So.2d 895 (1972); State v. Lawrence, 260 La. 169, 255 So.2d 729 (1971); State v. Wallace, 254 La. 477, 224 So.2d 461 (1969). Since no motion to suppress was filed in the present case, defendant's objection to the admission of the jacket in evidence based on the alleged unlawful search and seizure was waived.
The unconstitutionality of a search and seizure and the admissibility of evidence seized thereunder is a legal question for the judge alone, properly raised by motion to suppress filed before trial on the merits begins, C.Cr.P. Art. 703(A); and failure to file such a motion is a waiver of the defendant's right to question the admissibility of the evidence on these constitutional grounds by simple objection during trial. State v. Lawrence, 260 La. 169, 255 So.2d 729 (1971), and authorities cited. In addition, the judge correctly refused to permit defense counsel to file a motion to suppress during the trial.
* * *" See State v. Dallao, 187 La. 392, 175 So. 4 (1937); State v. Dabbs, 228 La. 960, 84 So.2d 601 (1955), in which the court said: "* * * Counsel for the defendant does not discuss this bill of exception in his brief, and there was no oral argument of its merits. We must necessarily conclude that he has abandoned this bill of exception. * * *" For the general proposition that bills of exceptions neither briefed nor argued are deemed abandoned, see State v. Minor, 241 La. 339, 129 So.2d 10 (1961), citing, among other cases, State v. Mills, supra; and the recent case of State v. Lawrence, 260 La. 169, 255 So.2d 729 (1971). We do not consider the merits of Bill of Exceptions No. 1.
Hence, the motion to suppress the photographs as evidence at the trial is now moot. See LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 703; State v. Lawrence, 260 La. 169, 255 So.2d 729 (1971). Bills of Exceptions Nos. 2, 3, and 10 were reserved to the overruling of the motion to suppress all of the physical objects that the investigating officers took from defendant's residence.
• avoiding "the serious personal inconvenience to jurors and witnesses which would result from interruptions and delay once the jury had been selected and the trial had commenced," id. ;• avoiding "the necessity of declaring a mistrial because the jury has been exposed to unconstitutional evidence," State v. Lawrence, 260 La. 169, 255 So.2d 729, 732 (1971) ;• avoiding "the waste of prosecutorial and judicial resources occasioned by preparation for a trial" because "a trial could be avoided if a timely and successful motion were made in advance," Mauro , 507 F.2d at 806 ;
By not having filed the motion to suppress evidence of which he was informed before trial, Christian has waived assignments six and eight about any claimed violation of his constitutional rights, federal and state, against unreasonable searches and seizures. CCrP Art. 703 F; State v. Lawrence, 255 So.2d 729 (La. 1971); State v. Davidson, 248 La. 161, 177 So.2d 273 (1965). See Annotation, Evidence-Wrongful Search and Seizure, 30 ALR 3d 531-592.