## Facts

- Donald Arbuthnot and Norman Williams were jointly charged with armed robbery of store owner Larry Tedley under La. R.S. 14:64.
- The State’s theory was that Williams entered the store wearing a ski mask, removed it while demanding money, and Arbuthnot waited outside.
- Only Tedley and a purported eyewitness, Mrs. Silver, saw the in-store robber’s face; Mrs. Silver did not testify at trial.
- A police officer testified, over defense objection, that Mrs. Silver identified Williams as the robber who entered the store.
- Arbuthnot was shot during the getaway, was identified by a bystander as leaving the scene, and was arrested at the hospital.
- A jury convicted both defendants of armed robbery; Arbuthnot received 65 years at hard labor and Williams received 99 years at hard labor.

## Issues

1. Whether it was reversible error to admit a police officer’s testimony that a non-testifying eyewitness identified Williams as a robber.
2. Whether Arbuthnot was entitled to appellate review of alleged trial errors when his counsel failed to formally file assignments of error in the trial court as required by La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 844 (1974).

## Decision

- The court reversed Williams’s conviction and remanded because the officer’s testimony repeating Mrs. Silver’s identification was inadmissible hearsay that materially bolstered the State’s proof of identity.
- The court affirmed Arbuthnot’s conviction and sentence because his counsel did not properly preserve claimed errors by formally filing assignments of error under La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 844.
- The court treated the appeals separately because Williams preserved the hearsay issue through a proper assignment of error, while Arbuthnot did not.

## Legal Principles

- A non-testifying witness’s out-of-court identification, introduced through a police officer to prove the defendant’s identity, is inadmissible hearsay.
- When identity is central and the hearsay identification effectively “doubles” the eyewitness identification presented to the jury, its admission is prejudicial and warrants reversal.
- Under La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 844 (1974), claimed trial errors generally must be preserved for appellate review by formally filing assignments of error in the trial court; arguments raised only in an appellate brief are not ordinarily reviewable.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed Williams’s armed-robbery conviction because the State improperly introduced a non-testifying eyewitness’s identification through police hearsay, but affirmed Arbuthnot’s conviction because his appellate claims were not preserved by timely filed assignments of error under Louisiana procedure.


State v. Arbuthnot, 367 So. 2d 296 (La. 1979)