State v. Jones, 55847

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
Writing for the CourtSANDERS
Citation315 So.2d 650
PartiesSTATE of Louisiana v. Telese JONES.
Docket NumberNo. 55847,55847
Decision Date23 June 1975

Page 650

315 So.2d 650
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Telese JONES.
No. 55847.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
June 23, 1975.

Page 651

Robert P. McLeod, Monroe, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Carl Parkerson, Dist. Atty., Joe Rolfe White, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

SANDERS, Chief Justice.

The State charged Telese Jones with attempted burglary in violation of LSA-R.S.

Page 652

14:27 and 14:62. After trial, the jury found the defendant guilty. The trial court sentenced the defendant to four and one-half years at hard labor.

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence, relying on five specifications of error.

The background facts are as follows:

At approximately 2:30 a.m., on August 24, 1974, the Bastrop Police Headquarters radioed a message to two Bastrop police officers that a burglar alarm at the Bastrop Junior High West Campus Cafeteria Building had been triggered. The two officers proceeded to the school. However, because they did not have the keys to the school-ground gate, one officer returned for the keys and one officer remained behind close to the premises to watch for anyone leaving the cafeteria building.

Sergeant Smith, who remained at the school, saw the defendant lying on his back in a driveway. The defendant's arm was severely cut, and he informed the officer that someone had cut him.

Shortly thereafter, the patrol car returned with the keys, and the police proceeded to the cafeteria building. They observed a large amount of blood on a broken window and on a barrel which was underneath the window. There was also blood on the ground which trailed approximately 500 feet to the driveway where the defendant had been found.

In addition, the police apprehended a second suspect inside the cafeteria.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

The defendant, in a motion to quash the bill of information, challenged the validity of Article 402 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure providing for the exemption of women from jury service unless they filed a written declaration of their desire to serve. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant reserved Assignment of Error No. 1 to its ruling.

Defendant was tried by a jury selected in October of 1974. Although Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975), held the Louisiana exemption unconstitutional, the United States Supreme Court in Daniel v. Louisiana, 420 U.S. 31, 95 S.Ct. 704, 42 L.Ed.2d 790 (1975), held that the Taylor decision would not be applied retroactively.

In brief, defendant argues that Taylor v. Louisiana, supra, should be given retroactive effect to defendants whose appeals are still within the state court system. He distinguishes Daniel v. Louisiana, supra, on the basis that Daniel's conviction had been affirmed by this Court prior to the Taylor decision.

This Court recently rejected a similar contention. See State v. Rester, La., 309 So.2d 321 (1975).

Assignment of Error No. 1 is, therefore, without merit.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 2 AND 3

Defendant assigns as error the denial of his challenges for cause of prospective jurors Warren Stevenson and Harold Andrews. Defendant bases his objection to the two prospective jurors on LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 797, which provides, in pertinent part:

'The state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that:

(2) The juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of his partiality. An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, if he declares, and the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • State v. Schmidt, No. 99-1412.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • 26 Julio 2000
    ...be inferred from all circumstances established at trial. State v. Hillman, 353 So.2d 1356 (La.App. 3 Cir.1977), citing State v. Jones, 315 So.2d 650 Circumstantial evidence consists of the proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact, specific intent......
  • State v. Williams, No. 58679
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 28 Febrero 1977
    ...timely objection must be raised when the alleged prejudicial comments are made. State v. Thomas, 325 So.2d 593 (La.1976); State v. Jones, 315 So.2d 650 (La.1975); State v. Batiste, 318 So.2d 27 (La.1975). Additionally, we note that the type of irregularities alleged herein are not discovera......
  • State v. Poche, No. 05-1042.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • 1 Marzo 2006
    ...on that witness's perception. Lay witnesses are allowed to identify "substance[s] of common recognition," such as blood. State v. Jones, 315 So.2d 650, 653 (La.1975); State v. Skipper, 284 So.2d 590 (La.1973). Pursuant to Jones, Skipper, and La.Code Evid. art. 701, we find that lay witnesse......
  • State v. George, No. 59047
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 16 Mayo 1977
    ...at a trial. Absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the trial judge's ruling should not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Jones, 315 So.2d 650 (La.1975). In view of the testimony of Junius Prosperie on voir dire examination, we are satisfied that the trial judge did not abuse his disc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • State v. Schmidt, No. 99-1412.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • 26 Julio 2000
    ...be inferred from all circumstances established at trial. State v. Hillman, 353 So.2d 1356 (La.App. 3 Cir.1977), citing State v. Jones, 315 So.2d 650 Circumstantial evidence consists of the proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact, specific intent......
  • State v. Williams, No. 58679
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 28 Febrero 1977
    ...timely objection must be raised when the alleged prejudicial comments are made. State v. Thomas, 325 So.2d 593 (La.1976); State v. Jones, 315 So.2d 650 (La.1975); State v. Batiste, 318 So.2d 27 (La.1975). Additionally, we note that the type of irregularities alleged herein are not discovera......
  • State v. Poche, No. 05-1042.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • 1 Marzo 2006
    ...on that witness's perception. Lay witnesses are allowed to identify "substance[s] of common recognition," such as blood. State v. Jones, 315 So.2d 650, 653 (La.1975); State v. Skipper, 284 So.2d 590 (La.1973). Pursuant to Jones, Skipper, and La.Code Evid. art. 701, we find that lay witnesse......
  • State v. George, No. 59047
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 16 Mayo 1977
    ...at a trial. Absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the trial judge's ruling should not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Jones, 315 So.2d 650 (La.1975). In view of the testimony of Junius Prosperie on voir dire examination, we are satisfied that the trial judge did not abuse his disc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT