State v. Ferguson
Decision Date | 21 June 1937 |
Docket Number | 34404 |
Citation | 187 La. 869,175 So. 603 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. FERGUSON |
Appeal from Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge; Charles A. Holcombe, Judge.
Walker Ferguson was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Conviction and sentence annulled, and case remanded for a new trial.
Fred G Benton and Carlos G. Spaht, both of Baton Rouge, for appellant.
Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O'Connor, Asst. Atty Gen., and Dewey J. Sanchez, Dist. Atty., and John R. Fridge Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Baton Rouge, for the State.
The defendant, Walker Ferguson, prosecutes this appeal from his conviction of murder without capital punishment and his sentence to imprisonment at hard labor for life, and, for the reversal thereof, he relies on several alleged errors committed by the State during his trial to which timely objections were made and bills of exceptions reserved to the ruling of the trial judge.
The first bills of exceptions argued by counsel for defendant orally and in brief are exceptions Nos. 2 and 3. Both were leveled at the ruling of the trial judge requiring the defendant, over his counsel's objection, to accept or reject prospective jurors before the State was required to accept or reject them.
The record shows that, after nine veniremen had been examined, two of whom were accepted by the State and the defendant, the district attorney examined three more jurors on their voir dire and tendered them to the defendant for examination by his counsel. After their examination, the jurors were tendered back to the State for acceptance or rejection before the defendant exercised his right to accept or peremptorily reject either of them. The trial judge ruled that the "district attorney had the right to examine the jurors and tender them to counsel for defendant for acceptance or rejection with the right on the part of the district attorney to re-examine said jurors if he so desired and to accept or reject them as he sees fit." The defendant reserved bill of exception No. 2 to the ruling of the court. Bill of exception No. 3 was reserved to a similar ruling by the court when the next three jurors were tendered by the defendant to the district attorney for acceptance or rejection. The defendant then requested that the same objection and ruling be made to apply to the examination of all subsequent jurors. It also appears that the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges before the jury panel was completed.
The procedure governing the examination and challenging of jurors is embraced in articles 358 and 359 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reading as follows:
We had these two articles under consideration in the cases of State v. Wells, 171 La. 795, 132 So. 349, and State v. Ussery, 178 La. 593, 152 So. 302, 303, on the question of whether the prosecution was compelled to accept or reject the prospective juror before tendering him to the defendant for examination, and in disposing of that issue, in the latter case, we said:
The trial judge in his per curiam stated that after a close study of these two decisions, he was convinced that he had erred in his ruling, but stated further that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hills
...thereby exercising the right of rejection rather than the right of selection. State v. Henry, 196 La. 217, 198 So. 910; State v. Ferguson, 187 La. 869, 175 So. 603. Counsel for the defendant cite the cases of Smith v. United States, and Brown v. United States (decided in one opinion), 4 Cir......
-
State v. Henry
...of the rule adopted by the district court is to render the right of peremptory challenge unavailing * * *.’ See, also, State v. Ferguson, 187 La. 869, 175 So. 603. It our opinion that the questions propounded to Messrs. Quirk and Duplechain were not improper but were framed for the purpose ......
-
State v. Plaisance
...such was provided by local rule. La.C.Cr.P. art. 788(B). The trial court failed to do that either. The defendant cites State v. Ferguson, 187 La. 869, 175 So. 603 (1937), wherein the trial court ruled that the State could examine the prospective jurors and tender them to the defendant's cou......
-
State v. Boone
... ... 513] ... to withdraw his acceptance of the juror, or to proceed in a ... way not consistent [194 La. 983] with his acceptance of the ... juror, after tendering him to the defendant's counsel for ... examination.’ See, also, State v. Wells, 171 ... La. 795, 132 So. 349; State v. Ferguson, 187 La ... 869, 175 So. 603. This bill is likewise without merit ... Bill of ... Exception No. 4 grew out of defendant's objection to the ... statement of the trial judge, in his charge to the jury, ... ‘ That if two men engage in a fair fist fight, and one ... arms himself and ... ...