State v. Weathers, 56350
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
| Writing for the Court | MARCUS |
| Citation | 320 So.2d 895 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Paul Charles WEATHERS a/k/a Sammy R. Allen. |
| Docket Number | No. 56350,56350 |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1975 |
Page 895
v.
Paul Charles WEATHERS a/k/a Sammy R. Allen.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1975.
Page 896
William M. Bass, Houma, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norval J. Rhodes, Dist. Atty., Alexander L. Doyle, Asst. Diat. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
MARCUS, Justice.
Defendant Paul Charles Weathers, was charged by bill of information with the crime of armed robbery in violation of La.R.S. 14:64. He was tried by jury, found guilty as charged, and was sentenced
Page 897
to serve 25 years to hard labor. On appeal, he relies upon six assignments of error for reversal of his conviction and sentence.ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 1, 2 AND 3
Defendant alleges that the trial judge erred when he refused to sustain defense counsel's challenges for cause of two prospective jurors. Defendant exercised peremptory challenges against both of these jurors and exhausted his peremptory challenges before the completion of the panel. La.Code Crim.P. art. 800 (1966).
The first prospective juror stated that he was a member of the Terrebonne Parish School Board, which was represented by the Terrebonne Parish District Attorney's Office. In connection with school board work, he had become acquainted with the district attorney and a member of his staff. The second prospective juror stated that he was acquainted with the district attorney and that he was a 'close, personal friend' of an assistant district attorney who had no role in the prosecution of this case. Both prospective jurors, questioned by the judge as to their impartiality, responded that their acquaintance with the district attorney and members of his staff would not prevent them from reaching a just and fair verdict.
Article 797 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure provides in relevant part:
The state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that:
(3) The relationship, whether by blood, marriage, employment, friendship, or emnity between the juror and the defendant, the person injured by the offense, the district attorney, or defense counsel, is such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict; . . ..
This court has repeatedly held that it is within the sound discretion of the trial judge to determine the competency of a juror, and only when the exercise of such discretion is arbitrary or unreasonable, to the prejudicial injury of the defendant in obtaining a fair and impartial trial, will this court be warranted in setting aside a verdict. State v. Frazier, 283 So.2d 261 (La.1973); State v. Willis, 262 La. 636, 264 So.2d 590 (1972); State v. Flucas, 262 La. 625, 264 So.2d 586 (1972). In Flucas, one prospective juror was challenged because of his friendship toward the prosecuting attorney, and the second prospective juror was challenged because of his friendship with one of the testifying police authorities, and because the prosecuting attorney had done some legal work for him about on month prior to the trial. Both prospective jurors indicated that their friendship and economic relations with persons involved in the case on behalf of the state would not alter their ability to be impartial. We held that it was reasonable for the trial judge to conclude that these contacts would not influence the jurors in arriving at their verdict.
Similarly, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge. The first three assignments of error lack merit.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4
Defendant alleges that the trial judge committed error when he permitted the state to question the victim of the robbery regarding money...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doc v. Warden La. State Penitentiary, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14-cv-0840 SECTION P
...State v. Sepulvado, 672 So.2d 158, 167 (La. 1996) citing State v. Constantine, 364 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (La. 1978) and State v. Weathers, 320 So.2d 895, 898 (La. 1975); State v. Carmouche, 872 So.2d 1020, 1049 (2002) (citations omitted). To the contrary, when aPage 41witness "has testified to ......
-
State v. Sheppard, 59370
...to the accused, will this court reverse the ruling of the trial judge. State v. Passman, 345 So.2d 874 (La.1977); State v. Weathers, 320 So.2d 895 During voir dire examination, Mrs. Brockway stated that she would give defendant the benefit of the doubt in a case based on circumstantial evid......
-
State v. Drew, 61121
...the ruling of the trial judge. State v. Sheppard, 350 So.2d 615 (La.1977); State v. Passman, 345 So.2d 874 (La.1977); State v. Weathers, 320 So.2d 895 During voir dire examination, both the state and defendant extensively questioned Messrs. Peebles, Stacks and Braddock. Each of these three ......
-
State v. de la Beckwith, 58586
...from the facts introduced in evidence. La.Code Crim.P. art. 774 (1966); State v. Lockett, 332 So.2d 443 (La.1976); State v. Weathers, 320 So.2d 895 (La.1975); State v. Smith, 257 La. 1109, 245 So.2d 327 (1971). Further, counsel may properly comment on and summarize the evidence in arguing f......