Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

352 So. 2d 1295

Docket No. 60149.

State v. Williams

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Isaac WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided December 19, 1977.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1977-12-19

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[i]n spite of the words that `it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally...' to do the prohibited acts, the statute requires no more than general criminal intent. LSA-R.S. 14:11. A distribution offense is a crime requiring only general criminal intent. Such intent is established by mere proof of voluntary distribution.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 683 So. 2d 1335 - State v. Roberts

“However, system was not relevant to prove any fact of consequence actually at issue herein (e. g., identity). Where system is not relevant for such purpose, the state is not permitted to prove other crimes in the guise of proving”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 354 So. 2d 1007 - State v. Frentz

Relies on 340 So. 2d 1353 - State v. Frederick · 340 So. 2d 1339 - State v. Lee · 352 So. 2d 195 - State v. Jackson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-12-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 2001

12 state decisions

701977198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1296 Paul A. Bonin, New Orleans, for appellant.

¶2William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Vincent Paciera, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

¶3TATE, Justice.

¶4The 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.

¶5The 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.

¶6These 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:

¶7(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).

¶8(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).

¶9(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.

¶10Accordingly, we reverse the convictions and sentences, and we remand for new trial(s) in accordance with law.

¶11REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶12SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., dissent.

/352/so2d/1295 · .json · Public domain