State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 20 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 58915,58915 |
| Citation | 347 So.2d 172 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Billy TAYLOR. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Woodrow W. Erwin, Dist. Atty., Kurt F. Sins, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
James J. Gleason, III, Director, Public Defender Office, 22nd Judicial District Court, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
In 1971, a grand jury indicted the defendant, Billy Taylor, for aggravated kidnapping, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:44. A jury found the defendant guilty, and the court imposed the death penalty. This Court affirmed the conviction, but remanded with instructions to sentence him to life imprisonment. La., 282 So.2d 491 (1973). The United States Supreme Court reversed. 1 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975).
In 1975, another grand jury indicted him for the same offense. However, due to an error in the Clerk of Court's office, the State sought a new indictment.
On February 9, 1976, a grand jury indicted him for the aggravated kidnapping of Mrs. Louise Willie, Ernestine Willie, and Andrew Jenkins. On February 16, 1976, the District Attorney's office amended the indictment, reducing the charge to the simple kidnapping of Mrs. Louise Willie. LSA-R.S. 14:45. The defendant pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. A five-man jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict. The court found the defendant to be a fourth offender and sentenced him to fifty years imprisonment at hard labor. LSA-R.S. 15:529.1
The defendant appeals. He relies on twenty-one assignments of error for reversal of his conviction and sentence.
We adduce the following context facts:
The defendant entered a parked car in which Mrs. Louise Willie, her daughter, Ernestine, and her grandson, Andrew Jenkins, were passengers. By threatening Ernestine with a butcher knife, he forced Mrs. Willie to drive to Mandeville. There, on an abandoned road, he raped Mrs. Willie. Later, he took their money and identification and released them.
The defense moved for the appointment of a sanity commission to examine the defendant. The court appointed Dr. Healy, a coroner, and Dr. Bloom, a psychiatrist, to the commission.
At the sanity hearing, the court qualified Dr. Healy as an expert to testify to the defendant's present mental condition. Defense counsel objected without assigning any specific ground.
In State v. Sosa, La., 328 So.2d 889 (1976), we stated:
As defendant failed to state a ground for his objection, this assignment of error is not reviewable.
Assuming, however, that we may treat this allegation, we find it ill-founded. The defendant's principle contention in brief is that Dr. Healy is not qualified under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 644, since he has no expertise in the psychiatric field.
Article 644(A) requires only that a physician be licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana and actually practice medicine for three consecutive years prior to his appointment on a sanity commission. This article authorizes the court to appoint a coroner. See Official Revision Comment (a). A physician need not be a psychiatrist to be a member of the commission. State v. Vince, La., 305 So.2d 916 (1974); State v. Cloud, 246 La. 658, 166 So.2d 263 (1964).
Dr. Healy met the requirements of Article 644(A). See also LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 647.
This assignment of error is without merit.
At the conclusion of the sanity hearing, the trial court found the defendant competent to stand trial. Defense counsel objected. We find no error in the ruling.
The evidence strongly supports the finding that the defendant possessed the capacity to understand the proceedings and assist in his defense. See LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 641.
The assignment of error is without merit.
The defendant complains of the admission of the sanity report into evidence at the sanity hearing. In brief he raises two grounds: that Dr. Healy was not qualified to sign the report and that the report was not the best evidence of its contents.
The defense advances the best evidence argument for the first time on appeal. Our law prohibits counsel from expanding his appellate argument to add a ground not raised at the trial level. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 841; State v. Rossi, La., 273 So.2d 265 (1973); State v. Jones, 250 La. 1007, 201 So.2d 105 (1967).
The defendant avers that Dr. Healy was unqualified to sign the sanity report because Dr. Bloom's diagnosis influenced Dr. Healy's diagnosis.
Initially, we note that Dr. Healy did make independent findings of the defendant's present mental ability.
The fact that Dr. Bloom's diagnosis admittedly influenced Dr. Healy's medical conclusions does not affect Dr. Healy's competency to sign the report. Rather, it goes to the weight given his testimony and diagnosis. The members of the sanity commission sign and issue the sanity report. See LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 645.
This assignment of error is without merit.
The court ordered Dr. Healy and Dr. Bloom to examine the defendant and report on his present mental condition and his mental status on the date of the offense. See LSA-C.Cr.P. Arts. 643, 650. Dr, Bloom evaluated the defendant's sanity at both points in time, but Dr. Healy only determined his present sanity.
The defendant alleges that the court erred in ruling that the commission satisfactorily discharged its duty for Dr. Healy failed to evaluate the defendant's mental capacity at the time of the offense.
A defendant is not entitled of right to an examination and evaluation of his sanity at the time of the offense. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 650. Whether a sanity commission is directed to investigate his sanity at that time lies within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Link, La., 301 So.2d 339 (1974) and the cases cited therein.
The issue of the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense is a jury question. The defendant could, as the trial judge noted, interrogate Dr. Healy on that issue at the trial. Defense counsel chose not to call him. See State v. Link, supra. However, he did extensively question Dr. Devillier, a psychiatrist called by the defense, and Dr. Bloom concerning sanity at the time of the offense.
The effect of the trial judge's ruling was to dispense with a supplemental report by Dr. Healy on sanity at the time of the offense. We find no abuse of discretion.
This assignment of error is without merit.
The defendant avers that the trial court erred in refusing to quash the 1971 and 1975 indictments.
Subsequent to trial, the State dismissed them. Thus, these complaints are moot.
These assignments of error are without merit.
The defendant's fourth motion to quash contests the validity of the February 9, 1976 indictment. He alleges that women and blacks were systematically excluded from, or alternatively included in, the grand and petit jury venires. 2
To support his allegation, he introduced the latest St. Tammany Parish census figures and data concerning the prospective juror's questionnaires. In addition, he called the St. Tammany Parish Clerk of Court for testimony.
This evidence indicates the following:
Females comprise 52% plus of the parish population and males 47% plus. Of the females, 82% plus are white, and 17% plus are black. Of the males, 83% plus are white, and 16% plus are black.
The Parish Jury Commission routinely selects every fifth or sixth name from the voting list, the telephone directory, and the Louisiana Gas Company's customer list. The Clerk of Court testified that there was no discrimination for or against any race or sex. She further explained that the persons canvassing the lists blindly select the names, that is, the persons choose prospective jurors by their numerical order on the lists. These lists make no reference to race. However, because of the prefix Mr. or Ms. or of the gender of the given name, the sex of a prospective juror is often ascertainable.
Each name selected receives a prospective juror's questionnaire. In this case, the commission sent out 776 questionnaires, 30% plus to females and 69% plus to males. When the questionnaires were returned, they were placed in the jury box. It is from this box that the Jury Commission picked the grand jury and petit jury venires. Thirty names were drawn for the grand jury venire, 6% plus females, 93% plus males; and 100 names for the petit jury venire, 35% females, 65% males.
The grand jury was composed entirely of males. Of the 5 jurors chosen for trial, 3 were women, 2 were men.
To support a challenge made to the composition of a jury venire, the defendant must demonstrate that the State has not complied with the statutory procedures for the selection of the venire or that there has been systematic discrimination affecting that class in the selection of the jury panel. See State v. Haynes, La., 339 So.2d 328 (1976); State v. Jones, La., 332 So.2d 461 (1976); State v. Brown, La., 319 So.2d 409 (1975).
The only evidence introduced to support his allegation of exclusion, or alternatively inclusion, of blacks are the census figures. These figures reflect that approximately 17% of the total population is black. The record does not reflect the percentages of blacks sent the questionnaire, chosen for the grand or petit jury venire,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hattaway
...current state constitution. See, e.g., State v. Cotton, 341 So.2d 355 (La.1977); State v. Lawrence, 294 So.2d 476 (La.1974); State v. Taylor, 347 So.2d 172 (La.1977); State v. Johnson, 327 So.2d 388 (La.1976); State v. Rudolph, 332 So.2d 806 (La.1976); State v. Stewart, 325 So.2d 819 (La.19......
-
State v. Drew
...the venire or that there has been systematic discrimination affecting a class of persons in the selection of the jury panel. State v. Taylor, 347 So.2d 172 (La.1977). First we address the issue presented by defendant's contention that the fourth petit jury venire was improperly selected. In......
-
State v. Chapman
... ... La.R.S. 15:275 vests the trial judge with "a sound discretion to stop the prolonged, unnecessary and irrelevant examination of a witness." This has been restated by the court on numerous occasions. State v. Kenner, 384 So.2d 413 (La.1980); State v. Taylor, 347 So.2d 172 (La.1977). The Court has held that a conviction will not be reversed due to the trial judge's control of the witness examination unless an abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Murray, 375 So.2d 80 (La.1979); State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16, cert. den. 429 U.S. 981, 97 S.Ct. 495, ... ...
-
State v. Sonnier
...rather than mandatory and invests the trial judge with great discretion in the appointment of a sanity commission. State v. Taylor, 347 So.2d 172 (La.1977); State v. Link, 301 So.2d 339 (La.1974), and cases cited therein. When the defendant pleads " 'not guilty and not guilty by reason of i......