State v. Nolan
| Decision Date | 24 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 58373,58373 |
| Citation | 341 So.2d 885 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Edward NOLAN. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Wilson R. Ramshur, Willis & Ramshur, St. Francisville, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leon A. Picou, Jr., Dist. Atty., Cynthia Picou Branton, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant, an inmate of Louisiana State Penitentiary, was indicted by the West Feliciana Parish Grand Jury for the second degree murder of a fellow prisoner. La.R.S. 14:30.1. Twelve jurors unanimously found defendant guilty of manslaughter and the court sentenced him to serve five years at hard labor consecutive to any previous sentence. On appeal, defendant urges nine assignments of error, one of which requires reversal of his conviction and sentence.
Following an extensive voir dire examination of a prospective juror, Mrs. Cornelius Doherty, defense counsel challenged her for cause. Upon the court's refusal to excuse the juror for cause, defense counsel challenged her peremptorily and exhausted the remainder of his peremptory challenges before the panel was completed. See, La.C.Cr.P. art. 800. We find that the court erred in failing to sustain the challenge for cause.
The prospective juror, a woman of sixth grade education, vacillated in her responses and indicated an inability to understand the questions asked by the attorneys and the judge. On the presumption of innocence and defendant's right not to testify in his own behalf, the following exchanges took place between the juror, counsel, and the court:
'(BY DEFENSE COUNSEL):
'Q. Do you believe that the authorities at Angola would send a convict down here to St. Francisville for prosecution unless he was guilty? Do you believe that in your mind?
'A. No.
'Q. In your mind again, I am directing attention to what you believe in your mind emotionally. Do you think that a Grand Jury would indict a convict unless he was guilty?
'A. Yes.
'Q. Again, I ask you--you are close to an emotional level, what you feel about--the District Attorney's office. Do you feel in your mind that if the District Attorney's office prosecuted the convict that more than likely that he is guilty?
'A. I think so and he would not be on trial.
'BY THE COURT:
'You understand Mr. (sic) Doherty that Mr. Nolan is on trial. We don't know whether he is guilty or not guilty. I don't know and you don't know. The question was, 'do you believe that merely because the District Attorney is going ahead with this trial that he is guilty'?
'BY THE COURT:
'BY THE COURT:
'BY THE COURT:
'BY THE COURT:
'Rephrase it.
'(BY DEFENSE COUNSEL):
'(BY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY):
'I don't thing she understands.
'BY THE COURT:
'She does not understand.
'BY THE COURT:
'(BY DEFENSE COUNSEL):
'(BY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY):
'He has stated that question three different ways.
'BY THE COURT:
'What is your answer?
'(BY DEFENSE COUNSEL):
'(BY DEFENSE COUNSEL):
'
'(BY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY):
'(BY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY):
'And the law further says a man does not have to testify in his own behalf, do you accept that law?
'(BY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY):
Additionally, because the killing occurred in the penitentiary and it was anticipated that the prime defense witnesses would be inmates, Mrs. Doherty was questioned about the relative weight she would attach to a police officer's testimony vis-a-vis inmate testimony:
'(BY DEFENSE COUNSEL):
'(BY DEFENSE COUNSEL):
'BY THE COURT:
'Do you feel, Mrs. Doherty, that you are biased toward inmates; that you would favor law enforcement witnesses?
'(BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY):
'She doesn't understand.
'(BY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY):
'(BY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY):
During the course of the voir dire examination, the trial judge repeatedly remarked upon the venirewoman's apparent incomprehension of the questions, but nevertheless concluded that she was merely 'confused' and did not '(present) any prejudice one way or the other.' Consequently, he refused to excuse her for cause.
Article 797 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a juror may be excused for cause on either of the following pertinent grounds:
'(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 is satisfied, that he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence; (or)
'(4) The juror will not accept the law as given to him by the court;
Under the jurisprudence, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. State
......2d 1166, 1171-72 (Ala. 1998). This Court has recognized that " ‘[a] juror .. who will unquestionably credit the testimony of law enforcement officers over that of defense witnesses is not competent to serve.’ State v. Davenport , 445 So. 2d 1190, 1194 (La. 1984). See also State v. Nolan , 341 So. 2d 885 (La. 1977) ; State v. Thompson , 331 So. 2d 848 (La. 1976) ; State v. Johnson , 324 So. 2d 349 (La. 1975) ; State v. Jones , 282 So. 2d 422 (La. 1973) ; State v. Williams , 643 S.W.2d 832, 834 (Mo. App. 1982). ‘A juror who will not be governed by the established rules as to ......
-
State v. Passman
...... State v. Governor, 331 So.2d 443 (La.1976); State v. Nix, 327 So.2d 301 (La.1976); State v. Johnson, 324 So.2d 349 (La.1976). . The instant case is distinguishable from that of State v. Nolan, 341 So.2d 885 (La.1977), therein we found an abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to excuse a prospective juror for cause, where the juror's voir dire testimony revealed not only a predisposition in favor of the State and its witnesses and against the defendant and his witnesses which ......
-
State v. Quatrevingt
...... In particular, counsel may inquire into the existence of a civil suit involving the witness or the possibility of civil liability on the part of the witness when such facts indicate that the witness has an interest in the criminal case or is otherwise not totally impartial. State v. Nolan, 341 So.2d 885 (La.1977); State v. Randolph, 334 So.2d 687 (La.1976). The broad right to impeach the witness for bias or interest is dictated not only by R.S. 15:492, but also by the statutory right to full cross-examination (R.S. 15:280) and the constitutional right of confrontation. State v. ......
-
State v. Claiborne, 80-KA-2084
...... See, e. g., State v. McIntyre, 381 So.2d 408 (La.1980); State v. Allen, 380 So.2d 28 (La.1980); State v. Sonnier, 379 So.2d 1336 (La.1980); State v. Shelton, 377 So.2d 96 (La.1979); State v. Webb, 364 So.2d 984 (La.1978); State v. Nolan, 341 So.2d 885 (La.1977); State v. Governor, 331 So.2d 443 (La.1976); State v. Johnson, 324 So.2d 349 (La.1975); State v. Monk, 315 So.2d 727 (La.1975); State v. Blanton, 312 So.2d 329 (La.1975); State v. Hillman, 298 So.2d 746 (La.1974); State v. Frazier, 283 So.2d 261 (La.1973); State v. Shaffer, ......