The trial judge is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause; his ruling will be reversed only when a review of the entire voir dire reveals an abuse of discretion. State v. Butler, 30,798 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 6/24/98), 714 So.2d 877, writ denied, 98-2217 (La. 1/8/99), 734 So.2d 1222, citing State v. Cross, 93-1189 (La. 6/30/95), 658 So.2d 683. When a defendant has exhausted all his peremptory challenges during jury selection, prejudice will be presumed if the trial court has erroneously denied a challenge for cause.
On May 23, 1997, he was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. See State v. Butler, 714 So.2d 877, 882 (La.Ct.App. 1998). His conviction was affirmed on June 24, 1998.
As an accessory to that well-established jurisprudence, "[A] party may not expressly agree to an adverse ruling, even on a written motion, and subsequently complain that the ruling was error." State v. Butler, 30,798, p. 32 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/24/98), 714 So.2d 877, 894, writ denied, 98-2217 (La. 1/8/99), 734 So.2d 1222.
However, this general rule does not apply when a witness has pending charges against him and the cross-examiner seeks to show these pending charges may bias or influence the testimony. State v. Butler , 30,798 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/24/98), 714 So. 2d 877.
Thus, when the State discussed the defendant's guilty pleas in closing, it was merely repeating what had otherwise been admitted into evidence at trial. SeeState v. Butler, 30,798 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 6/24/98), 714 So.2d 877, 890–91, writ denied, 98-2217 (La. 1/8/99), 734 So.2d 1222 ; State v. Jackson, 629 So.2d 1374, 1385 La. App. 2nd Cir. 1993), writ denied, 94-0201 (La. 5/6/94), 637 So.2d 1046. Defense counsel, therefore, could not complain after closing arguments about an issue that should have been brought to the trial court's attention during trial.
However, appellate review of the trial court's ruling is limited to the subject of the written motion. See , e.g. , State v. Small , 50,388 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/24/16), 189 So.3d 1129 ; State v. Butler , 30,798 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/24/98), 714 So.2d 877, writ denied , 98–2217 (La. 1/8/99), 734 So.2d 1222. When a court denies a motion to suppress, factual and credibility determinations should not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of the court's discretion; that is, unless such ruling is not supported by the evidence.
See, e.g., State v. Butler, 30,798 (La.App. 2d Cir.06/24/98), 714 So.2d 877; State v. Lindsey, 12–1195 (La.App. 4th Cir.11/20/13), 129 So.3d 759, writ denied, 13–2993 (La.06/13/14), 140 So.3d 1186. Even so, no violation occurred in the present case.
County Court took judicial notice of the fact that jury selection in defendant's trial began on Monday, March 6, 2006 and a verdict was rendered on Friday, March 10, 2006. The juror's act of driving Ashley home from the courthouse, without more, is not misconduct so inherently prejudicial as to require reversal (see People v. White, 79 A.D.3d 1460, 1463–1464, 913 N.Y.S.2d 818 2010, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 803, 929 N.Y.S.2d 111, 952 N.E.2d 1106 2011; People v. Turner, 210 A.D.2d 445, 445–446, 620 N.Y.S.2d 434 1994, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 915, 627 N.Y.S.2d 338, 650 N.E.2d 1340 1995; see also State v. Le Grand, 442 N.W.2d 614, 615–616 [Ct.App.Iowa 1989]; People v. Butler, 714 So.2d 877, 893–894 [Ct.App.La 1998]; compare Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 1965 ). Finally, defendant's actual innocence claim, which we previously rejected (116 A.D.3d at 1299, 984 N.Y.S.2d 240), is not properly before us on this appeal (see CPL 470.50; 22 NYCRR 800.14; see generally Matter of Hoffler v. Jacon, 72 A.D.3d 1183, 1186 n.4, 897 N.Y.S.2d 755 2010,appeal dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 768, 906 N.Y.S.2d 812, 933 N.E.2d 212 2010, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 872, 912 N.Y.S.2d 561, 938 N.E.2d 994 2010 ).
However, we find that defendant's stipulation to the trial court's consideration of the article 404(B) testimony as a whole, combined with counsel's renunciation of the right to object to the relevance of any of this testimony, makes this issue unreviewable on appeal. SeeState v. Butler, 30,798 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/24/98), 714 So.2d 877, 894, writ denied, 98-2217 (La. 1/8/99), 734 So.2d 1222; See alsoState v. Goal, 2001-0376 (La. App. 5th Cir. 10/17/01), 800 So.2d 938, 952 ("where a defendant initially files a [pretrial] motion objecting to the introduction of certain evidence, if at trial he specifically agrees to its introduction, he has waived his prior objection and loses the right to present the issue on appeal."). If defendant wished to seek to exclude particular pieces of the other crimes testimony, he should not have stipulated to the admissibility of that testimony, nor should he have given up the right to have the state call those individual witnesses at trial.
Evidence of a defendant's prior drug use may be admissible to show his motive for committing murder. See State v. Butler, 30,798, p. 20 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/24/98), 714 So.2d 877, 889 (“The evidence regarding the defendant's drug use was pertinent to establish a motive for this [murder] ... the admissibility of this evidence is dependent on the particular witness giving that evidence.”) Id. The defendant cites State v. Williams, 575 So.2d 452 (La.App.