State v. Bass
Decision Date | 04 November 1936 |
Docket Number | 34070 |
Citation | 171 So. 829,186 La. 139 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. BASS |
On Rehearing January 4, 1937
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; J. H Stephens, Judge.
B. A Bass was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Jack & Jack, of Shreveport, for appellant.
Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O'Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James U. Galloway, Dist. Atty., of Shreveport, for the State.
Defendant was indicted for the murder of his twenty-four year old son, who had at one time been confined to an insane asylum, but, at the time of his death, was residing with his father and stepmother.
The deceased was found dead in bed, in the family residence, on October 15, 1935, [171 So. 830] at 8 a. m., as a result of having been shot twice with a revolver, one bullet having entered the head slightly above and to the right of the right ear, lodging in the left cheek, and the other entering slightly below the right ear, passing through the head and lodging under the skin just above the left ear.
The State contended that the accused shot and killed his son on October 14, 1935, at about 10 o'clock p. m., in order to collect a $ 5,000 insurance policy on the life of the deceased, in which he was named the beneficiary.
The theory of the defense was that the young man was mentally unbalanced, nervous, and despondent and committed suicide, or that some person other than the defendant killed him.
The jury found defendant "guilty as charged, without capital punishment," and the judge sentenced him to life imprisonment. A motion for a new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment were overruled, and defendant has appealed.
There were a number of bills of exception reserved and they are grouped by counsel for defense under the following "specification of errors":
It appears that in selecting and impaneling the jury in this case, the regular jury venire list, as well as 400 prospective tales jurors, was exhausted. After the regular criminal venire list and the hundred names in the original tales box had been depleted and the tales jury box had been refilled by the jury commission at the judge's order, and 50 names had been drawn therefrom for jury service, the defendant objected to this list of 50 names on the ground that the clerk of court had filled the tales box that morning with the names of 100 people residing within the corporate limits of the city of Shreveport, and that there had been a systematic exclusion of people living outside of the city of Shreveport, who were qualified to serve as jurors. The defendant had the clerk of court sworn, and he testified that he had selected more than 200 names from the telephone directory of the city of Shreveport, because those persons could be easily served, and that he had given them to the jury commissioners. The court overruled the defendant's objection to the list of tales jurors, and he reserved bill of exception No. 3 1/2.
The same issue was again presented when the list of 50 tales jurors was exhausted and the defendant objected to another list of tales jurors on the same or identical grounds. The court overruled the objections and Bills of Exception Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 were reserved. The legal question presented in all of these bills was renewed in the motion for a new trial and in the motion in arrest of judgment, both of which were overruled, the defendant reserving Bills of Exception Nos. 51 and 52, respectively.
From each of the 6 tales juror lists, which the defendant objected to, there were selected one or more jurors, who served in the trial of the case.
The judge in his per curiam states:
* * *"
In the case of State v. Evans, 137 La. 379, 68 So. 732, it was held that the selection by the jury commission of tales jurors from one ward of the Parish of Rapides, in which the city of Alexandria is located, in no way affected the qualifications, as jurors, of the tales jurors so drawn.
In the case of State v. Dunn, 161 La. 532, 109 So. 56, it was held that the jury commissioners, in the absence of fraud or wrongdoing, were authorized, in their discretion, to select tales jurors from the city of Lake Charles and the ward in which it was situated.
It is argued that considerable publicity was given to the ruling and opinion of the trial court in refusing to grant the defendant bail on a preliminary hearing, and that the residents in Shreveport, and particularly the class of people listed in the telephone directory, read the newspaper articles and were influenced and prejudiced thereby.
The pertinent part of article 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads, as follows:
In the case of State v. Flores, 169 La. 22, 124 So. 132, the above article was applied.
The jury commissioners had the right to have the clerk of court assist them in securing a list of names and in the absence of fraud or wrongdoing, this circumstance does not affect the validity of the selection of the names.
In the instant case, no suggestion of improper intention or motive on the part of the commission is made. It is not sufficient cause to challenge the venire, because of a defect in the manner of selecting the jury, or in the composition, summoning, or proceedings of the jury commission, unless some fraud has been practiced or some wrong committed that would injure or prejudice the rights of the accused. Article 203, Code of Criminal Procedure; State v. Taylor, 44 La.Ann. 783, 11 So. 132; State v. Johnson, 116 La. 856, 41 So. 117; State v. Smothers, 168 La. 1099, 123 So. 781; State v. Bussa, 176 La. 87, 145 So. 276.
Bill of Exception No. 50 was reserved to the trial court's refusal to give the following requested special charge to the jury: "The fact that defendant had a preliminary hearing to seek bond has no bearing on his guilt or innocence in this case and it should be disregarded by you."
It was shown that on November 21, and 22, 1935, the accused was given a preliminary hearing, and the trial judge, in refusing to admit him to bail, gave written reasons, which were published in two daily newspapers of the city of Shreveport. It also appears that, in order to contradict the defendant, who took the witness stand in his own defense, the State used his testimony given at the preliminary hearing.
Counsel for the defendant argues that under the provisions of article 390 of the Code of Criminal Practice, the accused was entitled to have the requested special written charge given to the jury, since it was pertinent, and the general charge was insufficient, citing State v. Atkins et al., 136 La. 844, 67 So. 926.
The trial judge, in his per curiam, states:
It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial