State v. McDaniel
| Decision Date | 15 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 51740,51740 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Willie C. McDANIEL, Jr. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Paul Henry Kidd, Robert P. McLeod, Monroe, George M. Strickler, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hal R. Henderson, Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant, Willie C. McDaniel, Jr., appeals his jury conviction of aggravated criminal damage to property, La.R.S. 14:55 for which he was sentenced to serve ten years and 211 days in the State Penitentiary.* In undertaking this appeal, the defendant relies upon five bills of exceptions reserved and perfected during his trial.
Bills of exceptions Nos. 1 and 2 concern a motion to quash the petit jury venire and a motion for a change of venue. The issues raised by these two bills are identical to those presented and decided in State v. Curry, 262 La. 280, 263 So.2d 36 (decided May 18, 1972). For the reasons set forth in that decision, we find these two bills of exceptions lack merit.
Bills of exceptions Nos. 3 and 4 concern a motion attacking the constitutionality of State Statute, La.C.Cr.P. Art. 627 and a motion for the production and inspection of Grand Jury minutes. The issues raised by these two bills are identical to those presented and decided in State v. Curry, 262 La. 280, 264 So.2d 583 (decided this date). For the reasons set forth in that decision, we find these two bills of exceptions lack merit.
In bill of exceptions No. 5 counsel for the defense maintains error was committed when the trial judge excused two black persons who were declared disqualified by the Court for the reason that they were unable to read and write the English language to the satisfaction of the Court. This bill of exceptions attaches and incorporates the entire record of testimony taken during the trial. It does not indicate at what point in the lengthy transcript the jurors were excused. By reference to the Index of the two volume transcript, we are able to discover the colloquy between the judge and the two jurors who were excused. During the colloquy it was clear the judge excused these jurors because they were unable to read and write the English language. We therefore find the trial judge did not commit error in excusing the propective jurors for being unable to read and write. LaC.Cr.P. Art. 401; Art. 787.
In his brief, counsel for the defense attacks La.C.Cr.P. Art. 401 as...
To continue reading
Request your trial