# State v. Richey

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · June 7, 1971 · 258 La. 1094

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9686394

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph RICHEY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** June 7, 1971
- **Citations:** 258 La. 1094; 249 So. 2d 143; 1971 La. LEXIS 4229
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dixon
- **Judges:** Hamlin, Dixon, Barham, Tate, Nos
- **Cited by:** 58 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9686394

## Opinion text

DIXON, Justice
(concurring).
I concur. However, our ruling on Bill of Exceptions No. 27 should be further explained.
Requested charges 2, 3 and 4 in Bill of Exceptions No. 27 are, as noted in the per curiam, contained in the trial judge’s charge to the jury. The charge as given by the trial judge adequately instructed the jury as to the meaning of “reasonable doubt.”
When read as a whole, the trial judge’s charge covered the defendant’s requested *1153 charge number 1. Specifically, the jury was instructed that if they found “the evidence unsatisfactory on any single point indispensably necessary to constitute the defendant’s guilt,” such would be sufficient grounds for reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty. It was up to the jury to believe or disbelieve the witnesses’ testimony as to the identification of the defendant. Although the trial court probably should have instructed the jury as requested by the defendant pursuant to C.Cr.P. article 807, since the charge requested was not incorrect, the matters contained in the requested charge number 1 are implicit in the charge as given.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9686394. Public record. Not legal advice.