State v. Taylor

Decision Date15 January 1973
Docket NumberNo. 52844,52844
Citation282 So.2d 491
PartiesSTATE of Louisiana v. Billy J. TAYLOR.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

William McM. King, Covington, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Woodrow W. Erwin, Dist. Atty., Max Mercer, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff- appellee.

HAMLIN, Chief Justice:

Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence to death for the crime of aggravated kidnapping, LSA-R.S. 14:44.1

During the course of the proceedings a number of bills of exceptions were reserved, some of which are not now urged for our consideration. Defense counsel sets forth in his brief a specification of errors; the bills of exceptions which we shall consider fall under the following errors assigned:

'1

'The trial judge erred in upholding the prosecutor's challenges for cause of prospective jurors who expressed scruples against capital punishment.

'2

'The trial judge erred in overruling the objections of the defendant to the prosecutor's questioning of prospective jurors regarding their reaction to evidence of aggravated rape and armed robbery which he anticipated proving during the trial.

'3

'The trial judge erred in denying defendant's challenge for cause of prospective juror who had been for at least ten years a close friend and immediate neighbor to the persons injured by the alleged crime and their family.

'4

'The trial judge erred in upholding the prosecutor's objection to the introduction by defendant of the certified records of the Charity Hospital in New Orleans and East Louisiana Hospital in Jackson pertaining to defendant.

'5

'The trial judge erred in denying defendant's motion to quash the petit jury venire on the grounds that it systematically excluded women therefrom.

'6

'The trial judge erred in denying defendant's motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial on the grounds that the imposition and caarrying out of the sentence of death constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.'

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NO. 1

This bill of exceptions has been abandoned.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NO. 2

This bill of exceptions has been abandoned.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NO. 3

Bill of Exceptions No. 3 was reserved to the ruling of the trial judge which upheld the State's challenges for cause, over the objection of defense counsel, of certain enumerated jurors who expressed their opposition to capital punishment.

The issue raised in this bill is now moot because of the ruling of the United Stated Supreme Court with respect to the death sentence in the case of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346.

BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS NOS. 4 AND 5

Bills of Exceptions Nos. 4 and 5 were reserved when the trial judge overruled defense counsel's objections to the following questions propounded by the State to prospective jurors Camille H. Zeringue and Kenneth T. Erickson:

'In other words, let me pose a hypothetical situation. If you were sitting on a jury and the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt to your satisfaction that a defendant whose guilt or innocence you must decide, had kidnapped a lady, two ladies and a child, and during the course of that kidnapping had robbed them of their money at the point of a knife, and during the course of that kidnapping had in fact at the point of a knife committed the crime of aggravated rape, if you are satisfied with the evidence and the circumstances surrounding it in that factual situation, could you render an opinion of guilty as charged?' (The above question was propounded to prospective juror Zeringue.)

'Then if you are satisfied in the trial of the situation where the State presented it to you a kidnapping case which involves not only kidnapping but the facts and circumstances showed, during the course of the trial, that during the kidnapping the Defendant committed the crime of aggravated rape upon one of the victims and at the same time robbed them of their money before they were liberated, then you could return a verdict of guilty in that possible situation?' (The above question was propounded to prospective juror Erickson.)

Defense counsel contends that in effect the district attorney by means of the above questioning was trying to commit the prospective jurors' vote in advance. He argues that such questioning does not advance the legitimate goal of testing possible bias, and it is clearly improper.

An examination of the record reveals that neither Camille H. Zeringue nor Kenneth T. Erickson served as jurors in this prosecution. Although the trial court overruled defense counsel's objections to the above propounded questions, he excused both prospective jurors from service Under such circumstances, we find that the defendant suffered no prejudice, and there is no need for us to pass on his counsel's contentions.

Bills of Exceptions Nos. 4 and 5 are without merit.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NO. 6

This bill of exceptions has been abandoned.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NO. 7

This bill of exceptions has been abandoned.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NO. 8

Bill of Exceptions No. 8 was reserved to the ruling of the trial judge which denied defense counsel's challenge for cause of prospective juror Warren Martin on the ground that he had been for the ten years preceding trial a close friend of the victims of the crime and their family, and for that length of time lived across the street from them.

Defense counsel contends that the trial judge committed gross error in denying his challenge for cause, Art. 797, LSA-C.Cr.P., and that it is impossible to imagine that Martin would have been uninfluenced by his relationship.

An examination of the record reveals that prospective juror Warren Martin did not serve as a juror in this prosecution. Although defense counsel challenged the prospective juror for cause, he has not shown that defendant suffered any prejudice from an exhaustion of peremptory challenges. The record discloses that after defense counsel reserved a bill of exceptions to the instant ruling, the trial court immediately excused prospective juror Martin. Under such circumstances, defendant suffered no prejudice, and there is no need for us to pass upon his counsel's contentions.

Bill of Exceptions No. 8 is without merit.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NO. 9

Bill of Exceptions No. 9 was reserved when the trial judge refused to allow the introduction and filing in evidence in globo of the certified records of Charity Hospital in New Orleans and East Louisiana Hospital in Jackson, said records pertaining to the condition of the defendant.

Defense counsel contends that the trial judge clearly erred in not following the plain provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:3714 and not considering that the statute was an exception to the hearsay rule. He urges that the error substantially affected defendant inasmuch as defendant pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and the records sought to be admitted related to that defense.

LSA-R.S. 13:1714 provides:

'Whenever a certified copy of the chart or record of any hospital in this state, signed by the director, assistant director, superintendent or secretary-treasurer of the board of administrators of the hospital in question, is offered in evidence in any court of competent jurisdiction, it shall be received in evidence by such court as prima facie proof of its contents, provided that the party against whom the record is sought to be used may summon and examine those making the original of said record as witnesses under cross-examination.'

Defendant pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense and present incapacity. A lunacy commission was appointed, and a lunacy hearing was held on defendant's plea of Present incapacity to proceed. The plea was denied, the trial judge stating: 'I realize you have medical records out, but for the record you can complete the record, the Court at this time is going to rule the man is really sane and able to assist. I have no evidence that would change my mind.'2

The plea of not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense was a matter for the jury to decide. Defense counsel attempted to offer the hospital records for the purpose of substantiation the plea. The State argued:

'Your Honor, first of all, the medical records in a criminal case themselves constitute an opinion or medical testimony as general, and opinion of a medical except general, a doctor, as to the condition of a person's mind.

'Second of all, the best evidence is the doctor himself.

'In the third place, with regard to the records themselves, they are run through with hearsay evidence. They are run through with evidence that is self-serving in that many times the statements of the patient, many times letters, writings, or many kinds of documents are contained, and it is absolutely improper for all totally hearsay records to be introduced in a criminal case.

'If the doctor accepts the medical record as valid and forms an opinion based upon it, without telling where he got his information, if that is satisfied, then he can give his opinion. But certainly the jury nor the Court should be burdened with all the hearsay that is introduced into the record, and it is not admissible.'

As stated supra, the trial judge refused to admit defendant's hospital records in evidence in globo; the following colloquy took place between him and defense counsel:

'BY THE COURT:

'Mr. King, I am inclined to agree with the State on this. We have reams of records out there, and you could have a doctor examine this man and have a possible diagnosis such as this doctor has done which could possibly be changed at a later date by another doctor or by this doctor himself.

'BY MR. KING:

'I realize that.

'BY THE COURT:

'And I am just reluctant to let all this come in and burden this jury, should they decide too look at all the documents in this case and go into that record.

'I'm sure the only one competent to testify...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Taylor v. Louisiana 8212 5744
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1975
    ... 419 U.S. 522 . 95 S.Ct. 692 . 42 L.Ed.2d 690 . Billy J. TAYLOR, Appellant, . v. . State of LOUISIANA. . No. 73—5744. . Argued Oct. 16, 1974. . Decided Jan. 21, 1975. .           Syllabus .           Appellant, a male, was convicted of a crime by a petit jury selected from a venire on which there were no women and which was selected pursuant to a system ......
  • Poe v. Werner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • December 2, 1974
    ......         SHERIDAN, Chief District Judge. .         Plaintiff, Raymond Edwin Poe, presently an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, brought this action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983-1985, seeking ...Contemporaneously, the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in State v. Taylor, 1973, La., 282 So.2d 491, prob. juris. noted, 1974, 415 U.S. 911, 94 S.Ct. 1405, 39 L.Ed.2d 465, sustained the constitutional provision declared ......
  • State v. Sonnier, 63293
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • June 25, 1979
    ...at a verdict. See, also, State v. Crochet, supra; State v. Blanton, supra; State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1974); State v. Taylor, 282 So.2d 491 (La.1973), reversed on other grounds, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 704, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975); State v. Richmond, 278 So.2d 17 (La.1973); Stat......
  • State v. Tilley, 99-KA-0569.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • July 6, 2000
    ......As to Willie Ennis, the state argued that he was ambivalent in all his answers and that the prosecutor could not "get a read on him." As to Carol Simon, the prosecutor noted that two of her sons had been successfully prosecuted for felonies. With Sherlyn Taylor, the prosecutor argued that he excused her because she knew one of the defense attorneys. Finally, the state claimed it excluded Ronald Perkins because he did not know where his children worked and because he stated that he would lean heavily toward a life sentence. After hearing argument from both ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT