State v. Crawford
| Decision Date | 27 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | 35700. |
| Citation | 195 La. 428,196 So. 921 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. CRAWFORD. |
Appeal from Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Parish of St Tammany; Robt. D. Jones, Judge.
Ralph Crawford was convicted on a charge of cattle stealing, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Where it became evident after a jury of 5 had been impaneled and sworn that offense of cattle stealing was a felony requiring a jury of 12, and trial judge thereupon ordered 7 additional jurors to be drawn, to which accused objected on ground that he had already exhausted six peremptory challenges, and would be compelled to select additional 7 jurors with only six challenges, but no basis was given for his conclusion that the procedure was prejudicial, the procedure adopted did not require reversal of conviction. Act No. 64 of 1910, LSA-R.S 14:67; LSA-R.S. 15:277, 15:279, 15:338, 15:557; LSA-Const.1921, art. 1, § 9.
C. Sidney Frederick, of Covington, for appellant.
Lessley P. Gardiner, Atty. Gen., James O'Connor, Asst. Atty Gen., and Jas. T. Burns, Dist. Atty., of Covington, for the State.
The defendant prosecutes this appeal from his conviction and sentence to the penitentiary on a charge of cattle stealing.
During the course of the trial several bills of exception were reserved but only two were presented to the trial judge for his approval. The first, being without merit, was abandoned and the second alone is before us for consideration. It is based on the ruling of the trial judge ordering that seven additional jurors be drawn in order to complete a jury of twelve when it became evident, after a jury of five had been impaneled, sworn, and the district attorney had read to them the indictment and the law supporting the charge, that Act No. 64 of 1910 makes the offense of cattle stealing a felony, necessarily punishable at hard labor. Counsel for defendant objected to this ruling of the court, assigning at his reason therefor ‘ that such procedure is illegal and highly prejudicial to the constitutional rights of the defendant,’ and called the court's attention to the fact that under said ruling, having already exhausted six peremptory challenges in the selection of the jury of five, he would be compelled to select the remaining seven with only six challenges. When the next prospective jurors were called, counsel objected to them being questioned on their voir dire or sworn ‘ for the reason that the said jurors were temporarily discharged by the Court * * * after a jury of five had been impaneled and sworn and the Indictment and law in reference to the case read to the said jury * * *.’
It is the contention of the defendant that under the express provisions of Article 277 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the jury of five was selected, sworn, and the indictment read to them, he was placed in jeopardy and that, in accordance with the decisions of this court in the cases of State v. Carmouche, 141 La. 325, 75 So. 68, and State v. Hataway, 144 La. 138, 80 So. 227, he was entitled to have a mistrial entered, a new trial commenced, all of his peremptory challenges restored to him, and to have the five jurors retendered on their voir dire for acceptance or rejection.
On the other hand, counsel for the state argues that there is nothing in the record to show that the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror or in what manner he was prejudiced by the ruling of the trial judge, and that, therefore, he is not entitled to have his conviction and sentence set aside and a new trial granted.
The offense of cattle stealing having been made a felony, necessarily punishable at hard labor (Act No. 64 of 1910), it is triable by a jury of twelve (Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of 1921 and Article 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and the trial and conviction of a person charged with such an offense by a jury of five is absolutely null, the jury having no jurisdiction of that crime. See State v. Beebe, 127 La. 493, 53 So. 730, and State v. Reeves, 128 La. 37, 54 So. 415.
On the trial of a felony, jeopardy only begins when a jury of twelve has been completed, sworn, and the indictment read to them. Articles 277 and 279 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; State v. Heard, 49 La.Ann. 375, 21 So. 632; State v. Yokum, 155 La. 846, 99 So. 621; and State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Breedlove
...1278, 20 So. 735, and State v. Addison, 134 La. 642, 64 So. 497, State v. Messer, 194 La. 238-253, 193 So. 633, and State v. Crawford, 195 La. 428-430, 196 So. 921. It will be noted, in the foregoing cases, no reference made to the conflicting authorities. For a discussion of the subject, s......
-
State v. Henry
... ... for neither of these jurors served, having been peremptorily ... challenged by the defendant, it not appearing that as a ... result thereof the defendant was forced to accept an ... obnoxious juror. Article 353 of the Code of Criminal ... Procedure; State [200 La. 890] v. Crawford, 195 La. 428, 196 ... So. 921; State v. Henry, 197 La. 999, 3 So.2d 104; and State ... v. Breedlove, 199 La. 965, 7 So.2d 221 ... Counsels' contention in effect is that because of the ... ruling of the trial judge which prompted their reservation of ... Bill of Exceptions No. 7, they were not ... ...
-
State v. Johnson
...number of jurors is null. State v. Bennett, 270 So.2d 840 (1972); State v. Cazes, 262 La. 202, 263 So.2d 8 (1972); State v. Crawford, 195 La. 428, 196 So.2d 921 (1940). Unlike most procedural errors discoverable on the face of the record[...]decreased jury size necessarily affects the funda......
-
State v. Jenkins, 81-KA-0719
...number of jurors is null. State v. Bennett, 270 So.2d 840 (1972); State v. Cazes, 262 La. 202, 263 So.2d 8 (1972); State v. Crawford, 195 La. 428, 196 So.2d 921 (1940). Unlike most procedural errors discoverable on the face of the record, La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920(2), decreased jury size necessar......