State v. Goodbier
| Decision Date | 29 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 62904,62904 |
| Citation | 367 So.2d 356 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Paul GOODBIER, Jr. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Chester R. Cedars, Gauthier & Cedars, Ltd., Breaux Bridge, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Knowles M. Tucker, Dist. Atty., J. Phil Haney, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
*
On February 15, 1977, Paul Goodbier was charged by bill of information with the attempted aggravated rape of a female, a violation of La.R.S. 14:42. After a number of delays, resulting primarily from disagreements between defendant and the various retained and appointed attorneys who worked on the case for him, the defendant was tried by a twelve-person jury on January 9-11, 1978. On March 6, 1978, the trial judge sentenced the defendant to serve eighteen years at hard labor in the custody of the Department of Corrections.
Shortly after sentencing, on March 10, 1978, the defendant filed a motion for appeal and a motion to act as his own attorney in the appellate proceedings. The trial judge granted both of these motions but appointed an attorney to assist and advise the defendant in the exercise of his appellate rights. 1 Appointed counsel prepared three assignments of error, and defendant himself prepared seventeen assignments of error for review by this Court. We find that only the first assignment of error raises a substantial question.
In his first assignment of error defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial on the ground that material portions of the trial court proceedings were not recorded. The state concedes that none of the voir dire examination of prospective jurors in this case was recorded.
No person may be imprisoned in this state without the right of judicial review based on a complete record of all evidence upon which the judgment is based. La.Const. art. 1, § 19. See also, La.C.Cr.P. art. 843. This Court has on several occasions found reversible error where material portions of the trial court record were unavailable or incomplete. State v. Parker, 361 So.2d 226 (La.1978); State v. Jones, 351 So.2d 1194 (La.1977); State v. Ford, 338 So.2d 107 (La.1976); State v. Bizette, 334 So.2d 392 (La.1976); State v. Rooney, 187 La. 256, 174 So. 348 (1937). See also, Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956).
However, affidavits of record by the court reporter and the defendant's trial counsel state that no objections were made by the defense during the voir dire. Absent a contemporaneous objection this Court can review only errors discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings. La.C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Mack, 243 La. 369, 144 So.2d 363 (1962). The only error of this nature which could arise during voir dire is the absence of the defendant, and a minute entry in the record of this case specifically provides that the defendant was present during this portion of the trial.
Moreover, the minutes kept during the trial, as as well as the affidavits, reveal that the defendant's peremptory challenges were not exhausted. Therefore, the defendant could not complain of a refusal by the trial court to sustain a challenge for cause even if such a ruling had been made. La.C.Cr.P. art. 800.
For purposes of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Alridge
...omissions or slight inaccuracies do not require reversal." Frank , 99–0553, p. 21, 803 So.2d at 20 (citing State v. Goodbier , 367 So.2d 356, 357 (La. 1979) (declining to reverse when record did not include voir dire examination transcript and the court reporter's affidavit indicated that n......
-
State v. Hoffman
...of prospective jurors). On the other hand, inconsequential omissions or slight inaccuracies do not require reversal. State v. Goodbier, 367 So.2d 356, 357 (La. 1979) (reversal not required when record does not include a transcript of the voir dire examination and affidavit of court reporter......
-
State v. Frank
... ... Ford, 338 So.2d 107 (La.1976) (reversal required when record was missing 803 So.2d 20 the testimony of four state witnesses and the voir dire of prospective jurors). On the other hand, inconsequential omissions or slight inaccuracies do not require reversal. See State v. Goodbier, 367 So.2d 356, 357 (La.1979) (reversal not required when record does not include a transcript of the voir dire examination and affidavit of court reporter indicated that counsel made no objections during voir dire). Finally, a defendant is not entitled to relief because of an incomplete record ... ...
-
Smith v. State
... ... E. g., People v. Scott, supra; Commonwealth v. Hughes, 480 Pa. 311, 389 A.2d 1081 (1978); State v. Goodbier, 367 So.2d 356 (La.1979); Williams v. State, supra. See People v. Horton, supra; People v. Drew, 26 Mich.App. 337, 182 N.W.2d 566 (1970); State v. Neely, 21 N.C.App. 439, 204 S.E.2d 531 (1974). In states that have some established procedure for correcting the record, most have required the ... ...