Cases

PER CURIAM. We granted certiorari and consolidated this case for argument with State v. Allen, 496 So.2d 301 (La.1986), under the mistaken impression that both cases presented the same issue of whether La.C.Cr.P. Art. 893.1’s prohibition of eligibility for parole applies only to the minimum sentence mandated by the article or may be imposed on the entire sentence selected by the trial judge within the range of his sentenc

WATSON, Justice. Defendant, Thomas Nathan Tufts, was charged by bill of information with two counts of obtaining Demerol, a Schedule II drug, “knowingly and intentionally ... by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception or subterfuge,” in violation of LSA-R.S. 40:971(B)(l)(b).1 After trial by jury, Tufts was found guilty on both counts. The sentence was two years in parish prison on each cou

PER CURIAM. Defendant was charged by bill of information with armed robbery in violation of La.R.S. 14:64. After trial by jury beginning on November 19, 1980, he was found guilty as charged. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced him to fifty (50) years’ imprisonment at hard labor. Defendant has now appealed his conviction and sentence to this Court urging the four assignments of error filed below. We have reviewed the assignme

PER CURIAM. Defendant, John H. Stapleton, was indicted for manslaughter, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:31. Following trial by a jury of twelve, he was found guilty and sentenced to serve ten years at hard labor. The de*776fendant has assigned three errors as the basis for his appeal before this Court. The defendant lived with his common-law wife in a h

CALOGERO, Justice.* Lamont Keith Johnson, sixteen years of age at the time that he allegedly participated in the murder of John Doucet on June 3, 1974,1 was indicted for the crime of first degree murder. He entered, and the district court accepted, a plea of guilty to the non-capital responsive verdict, second degree murder.2

TATE, Justice (concurring). In my opinion, the trial judge correctly construed La.C.Cr.P. art. 213 as not allowing the warrantless arrest of a defendant for a misdemeanor not committed in the officer’s presence. La.C.Cr.P. art. 213(1) is a specific provision permitting warrantless arrests by an officer when “The person to be arrested has committed an offense in his presence, and if the arrest is for a misdem

TATE, Justice. The defendant was Convicted of manslaughter, La.R.S. 14:31, and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. He argues seven assignments of error upon his appeal. We find no merit in them and affirm. Facts Before summarizing the assignments, we state the background facts: The defendant is charged with killing Glenn Russell. Russell’s tenan

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. DENNIS, J., dissents on basis of Assignment of Error # 5.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. MARCUS and BLANCHE, JJ., dissent; the time limitation on closing argument was unreasonable.

TATE, Justice. The defendant appeals from a conviction of armed robbery, La.R.S. 14:64, and a sentence to twenty years’ imprisonment at hard labor. He relies upon five assignments of error, all directed at trial court rulings sustaining state objections to defense questioning of witnesses. We find no reversible merit to any of the assignments, for the following reasons: Assignm

PER CURIAM. Writ granted. The trial judge is ordered to grant petitioner an out of time appeal.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.

PER CURIAM. Because of the exigencies of this case, requiring prompt disposition, we hand down our decision, the reasons for which will follow in due course. The ruling of the district court is reversed, the motion to quash is overruled, and the case is remanded to the district court for trial as a capital offense. In the event of conviction, the imposition of sentence shall be deferred pending further or

PER CURIAM. Defendant was convicted after trial by jury of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence for a period of forty years. Because we find no reversible error in any of defendant’s eighteen assignments of error, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.

SANDERS, Chief Justice. The defendant was charged by bill of information with Distribution of Marijuana in violation of LSA-R.S. 40:971. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the trial judge sentenced the defendant to serve a term of three years in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections. He appeals, relying upon three bills of exceptions for a reversal of his conviction. BILL OF EXCEP

DENNIS, Justice (concurring). I concur in the majority opinion; although I believe that portions of the bribery of voters statute are unconstitutional, the issue has not been properly raised here. See my concurring opinion on rehearing in State v. Newton, 328 So.2d 110, 119 (La.1976). I respectfully concur.

DIXON, Justice. Defendants Robert M. Schwartz and Henry F. Jacomb filed a motion to set aside their arrest and annul their bond obligations. The basis of the motion was that the nonresidents were in this State in response to a federal subpoena to testify at a federal grand jury investigation, and were therefore exempt from arrest for matters which arose before the issuance of the summons. After a hearing the motion was denie

TATE, Justice. The defendant Martin was convicted of simple burglary, La.R.S. 14:62, and sentenced to six years at hard labor. Of the eight assignments of error presented on his behalf, the most arguably reversible is raised by the third assignment. Assignment of Error No. 3: The basis for this assignment requires a statement of the context facts: At two

SUMMERS, Justice. Paul Molbert was convicted of the crime of manslaughter in the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Lafayette Parish. On September 24, 1974 he was sentenced to the custody of the Department of Corrections for a period of twenty-one years to be served at hard labor, the sentence “to run consecutive with any sentence previously imposed.” Prior to the conviction and sentence in the instant case,