State v. Clark
| Decision Date | 13 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 57438,57438 |
| Citation | 340 So.2d 1302 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Norman J. CLARK. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Page 1302
v.
Norman J. CLARK.
Page 1304
L. Howard McCurdy, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
SANDERS, Chief Justice.
The State charged Norman J. Clark, the defendant, with the distribution of heroin, a violation of LSA-R.S. 40:966. The first trial ended in a mistrial. However, at his second trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. The defendant received the mandatory life sentence.
The defendant appeals, relying on eight assignments of error. Nine assignments of error are considered abandoned as they were neither briefed nor argued. State v. Blanton, La., 325 So.2d 586 (1976); State v. Carlisle, La., 315 So.2d 675 (1975); State v. Richmond, La., 284 So.2d 317 (1973).
The defendant filed a pro se brief, supplementing the arguments of his counsel.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 3 AND 4
The defendant contends that the trial judge erred in denying his challenges for cause as to two prospective jurors, Maloof and Coulter. His grounds were Coulter's position as a volunteer coach for a police combat team and Maloof's position as Assistant to the Engineer in the Engine Room in the Traffic Court Building. The defense contended that these prospective jurors did not satisfy the requirement of impartiality. See LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 797(2).
In answering the trial judge's questions as to their partiality, both jurors stated that the contacts mentioned would not affect their deliberations. (Tr. pp. 2 and 3) In addition, both prospective jurors responded affirmatively to the following question posed by the court:
'Do you feel like you could give the defendant a fair and impartial trial, the same kind of trial you would want if you were on trial?'
(Tr. p. 2; see Tr. p. 3)
Upon reviewing the entire voir dire examination we find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in overruling the defense's challenges. State v. Weathers, La., 320 So.2d 895 (1975); State v. Jones, La., 315 So.2d 650 (1975); State v. Richmond, supra; State v. Flucas, 262 La. 625, 264 So.2d 586 (1972); State v. Isaac, 261 La. 487, 260 So.2d 302 (1972).
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 6
The defendant complains that the notice of the State's intention to introduce a confession or an inculpatory statement was untimely in that it prevented him from adequately preparing a defense.
The record indicates that the defendant received the written notice on the morning of trial prior to the State's opening statement.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 768 provides in pertinent part:
'If the state intends to introduce a confession or inculpatory statement in evidence, it shall so advise the defendant in
Page 1305
writing prior to beginning the state's opening statement.'Since the State complied with the time set forth in the article, we find this assignment of error devoid of merit. State v. Morris, 259 La. 1001, 254 So.2d 444 (1971), U.S. cert. denied 406 U.S. 959, 92 S.Ct. 2066, 32 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972).
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 8 AND 15
1
The defendant asserts that the trial judge erred in failing to order certain testimony stricken from the record, or alternatively in denying his Motion for a Mistrial based on a refusal to admonish the jury to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chapman
... ... Qualls, 353 So.2d 978 (La.1977) (challenged juror's husband was a police officer); State v. Madison, 345 So.2d 485 (La.1977) (venireman's brother-in-law had been deputy sheriff for over a year); State v. Calloway, 343 So.2d 694 (La.1976) (juror's nephew was a police officer); State v. Clark, 340 So.2d 1302 (La.1976) (one challenged juror was volunteer coach for police combat team, another challenged juror was assistant to engineer in traffic court building); State v. Ballard, 337 So.2d 481 (La.1976) (venireman was unpaid auxiliary policeman in connection with his civil defense ... ...
-
State v. George
... ... 15:463 applies only as to subjects regarding which any person of experience might make an inference and only when the witness states all the basic facts upon which the inference is based. State v. Roche, 341 So.2d 348 (La.1976); State v. Clark, 340 So.2d 1302 (La.1976); State v. Prater, 337 So.2d 1107 (La.1976); State v. Rogers, 324 So.2d 403 (La.1975); State v. Davalie, 313 So.2d 587 (La.1975); State v. Lewis, 288 So.2d 324 (La.1974) ... In our view, the thrust of the question propounded in the instant case was to ... ...
-
State v. Passman
... ... State v. Roche, 341 So.2d 348 (La.1977); State v. Glover, 340 So.2d 1346 (La.1976); State v. Clark, 340 So.2d 1302 (La.1976); State v. Neal, 321 So.2d 497 (La.1975) ... The witness called upon to make the comparison responded not only in reliance on the photograph shown to him, but also on the basis of his personal observation of the accused at the time he was taken into ... ...
-
State ex rel. Clark v. Marullo
...appeal by a motion for directed verdict is whether there was no evidence of the crime or an essential element of the crime. State v. Clark, 340 So.2d 1302 (La.1976); State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 There was ample evidence introduced at trial demonstrating that the defendant entered the stor......