State v. Lynch
| Decision Date | 08 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 56701,56701 |
| Citation | 323 So.2d 781 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. George Ray LYNCH. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Donald Soileau, Mamou, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., James Lynn Davis, Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
The Sabine Parish Grand Jury indicted George Ray Lynch for the second degree murder of Austin Foster. After the trial court overruled several preliminary motions, including a motion to quash the jury venire, the case was tried. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the trial judge sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment, without benefit of parole for a period of twenty years.
The defendant appeals, relying upon four assignments of error. Assignments of Error Nos. 5 and 6 were neither briefed nor argued and are, therefore, considered abandoned. See, e.g., State v. Edwards, 261 La. 1014, 261 So.2d 649 (1972).
The defendant reserved Assignment of Error No. 1 to the overruling of his motion to quash the jury venire. The motion alleged the grand jury venire and petit jury venire did not 'fairly represent' the population of Sabine Parish.
Although these allegations are general in nature, the evidentiary record discloses defendant's main contention is the system used by the Jury Commission for selecting names for the general venire is discriminatory and is not designed to reasonably assure the selection of a fair cross-section of the population.
Two witnesses, The Registrar of Voters and the Clerk of Court, testified on the motion. The parties stipulated that the testimony of the other Jury Commissioners would be substantially the same as the Clerk of Court's testimony. 1
The testimony shows that the 1970 parish-wide voter registration list was the last list furnished by the Registrar of Voters to the Jury Commission. The Clerk of Court, however, testified that he received later registration lists from several candidates for public office. In selecting the general venire, the Commissioners used the voter registration list, telephone directories, and their personal knowledge. Each Commissioner had the duty of maintaining a thorough knowledge of two wards.
The Clerk of Court testified that there was no discrimination because of race, sex, or other illegal factors in the selection of the general venire.
Article 419 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
'A general venire, grand jury venire, or petit jury venire shall not be set aside for any reason unless fraud has been practiced or some great wrong committed that would work irreparable injury to the defendant.'
From our examination of the testimony, we are convinced that the Jury Commissioners relied substantially upon their personal knowledge of the parish residents. They were able to do so because the parish has a relatively small population. We are equally convinced that the Commissioners made a legitimate effort to provide a fair cross-section of the parish for the jury list. Certainly, there has been no showing of fraud or great wrong required by the above article to set aside the jury venire.
Assignment of Error No. 1 is without merit.
In Assignment of Error No. 2, defendant complains of the denial of his motion to suppress a confession. He confessed to law enforcement officers a few hours after the homicide occurred.
At the hearing on the motion, defendant testified that he is a 26-year-old former pulpwood hauler with only a fifth grade education; that he could not read; that the officers asked him if he knew his rights, and he responded 'What rights?'; that one officer then threw a piece of paper upon a counter and said 'sign it'; that defendant was afraid, and thus he signed the piece of paper without knowing what it was; that no one advised him of his Miranda rights.
State Trooper Isgitt testified that he arrested defendant in the town of Florien and transported him to the Sheriff's office in Many. He did not inform defendant of his rights at the time of the arrest but did not question him during the trip to Many. When defendant and Trooper Isgitt arrived at the Sheriff's office, they were joined by Deputy Wayne Turner.
Officer Isgitt testified to the following: that he read defendant his rights from the Waiver of Rights form; that defendant wanted to sign the form immediately, saying he knew what his rights were and that he just wanted to get it over; that both he and Deputy Turner, nevertheless, went over the rights with defendant; that he told defendant the matter was serious, and that a lawyer could be appointed.
Isgitt stated that he could smell alcohol upon defendant's breath, but that defendant did not appear to be intoxicated Isgitt decided to run an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jenkins
... ... Art. I, § 16, Art. V, § 33 (1974) and La. Supreme Court Rule XXV after an effort to ease the Sabine Parish jury commission's transition from an unlawful to a lawful system of venire selection had proven fruitless. Cf. State v. Larue, 324 So.2d 384 (La.1976); State v. Lynch, 323 So.2d 781 (La.1975). The instant case was tried under the 1921 constitution, before the adoption of our court rule and recent more stringent policy toward jury commission improprieties ... Accordingly, when we apply the standards which were pertinent at the time of the ... ...
-
State v. Taylor
... ... We have approved of the compilation of jury panel names by random selection from voting registration rolls, telephone books, and utility lists. State v. Lynch, La., 323 So.2d 781 (1975); State v. Evans, La., 304 So.2d 338 (1974); State v. Foy, La., 278 So.2d 38 (1973); State v. Millsap, 258 La. 883, 248 So.2d 324 (1971). The defendant has failed to present specific evidence to support his allegation that these lists are predominately male ... ...
-
96-608 La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/96, State v. Hampton
...and in the absence of such a showing, a jury venire will not be set aside. State v. Procell, 332 So.2d 814 (La.1976); State v. Lynch, 323 So.2d 781 (La.1975); State v. Liner, 397 So.2d 506 (La.1981); State v. Brown, 395 So.2d 1301 Additionally La.Code Crim.P. art. 783(B), states that: B. If......
-
State v. Matthews
... ... The jurisprudence allocates to the defendant the burden of establishing fraud or that some irreparable injury was caused by the jury selection process and in the absence of such a showing, a jury venire will not be set aside. State v. Procell, 332 So.2d 814 (La.1976); State v. Lynch, 323 So.2d 781 (La.1975); State v. Liner, 397 So.2d 506 (La.1981); State v. Brown, 395 So.2d 1301 (La.1981) ... In the present case, the defendant failed to present any evidence that the jury venire selection process was conducted fraudulently or caused the defendant any ... ...