State v. Forbes

13 Citing cases

  1. State v. Smith

    359 So. 2d 160 (La. 1978)   Cited 5 times
    In State v. Smith, 359 So.2d 160 (La. 1978) [citing State v. Forbes, 348 So.2d 983 (La. 1977); State v. de la Beckwith, 344 So.2d 360 (La. 1977)], the Louisiana Supreme Court restated its position that a subsequent state prosecution of defendants on a similar charge for which they were prosecuted in federal court is constitutionally permissible under both Federal and State Constitution.

    In recent decisions this Court has adhered to the principle developed in the federal decisions by holding that, under the doctrine of double jeopardy, a subsequent prosecution by a different sovereign is constitutionally permissible under both Federal and State Constitutions. State v. Forbes, 348 So.2d 983 (La. 1977); State v. de la Beckwith, 344 So.2d 360 (La. 1977). Applying this principle to the instant case, the subsequent state prosecution of these defendants on a similar charge for which they were previously prosecuted in federal court did not place them twice in jeopardy for the same offense under the Federal and State Constitutions.

  2. State v. Fugler

    721 So. 2d 1 (La. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 21 times

    In assignment of error number 1, the defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his challenge against juror Judy Kay Bethley because she was not impartial because she "either lied or did not answer completely when asked if she had any relatives in law enforcement or relatives who worked for a prosecutor's office." He relies upon State v. Martin, 558 So.2d 654, 661-62 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 564 So.2d 318 (La. 1990) and attempts to distinguish State v. Forbes, 348 So.2d 983, 984-85 (La. 1977). A mistrial may be ordered, and in a jury case, the jury dismissed, when false statements of a juror on voir dire prevent a fair trial.

  3. State v. Jones

    408 So. 2d 1285 (La. 1982)   Cited 22 times
    In State v. Jones, 408 So.2d 1285 (La. 1982), this court classified the federal charge of possession of stolen mail as possession of stolen goods, a violation of R.S. 14:69.

    In a joint trial of this nature, the peremptory challenges of one defendant cannot said to be exhausted as long as any such challenges are left to either defendant. State v. Forbes, 348 So.2d 983 (La. 1977). Therefore, Jones cannot complain of the ruling on his challenge for cause.

  4. State v. Baldwin

    388 So. 2d 664 (La. 1980)   Cited 76 times
    In State v. Baldwin, 388 So.2d 664 (La. 1980), the defendant robbed the elderly victim, who had been his former neighbor.

    The trial court found no impediment to a fair trial and correctly denied the mistrial. State v. Forbes, 348 So.2d 983 (La. 1977). This assignment of error lacks merit.

  5. State v. Sonnier

    380 So. 2d 1 (La. 1980)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing death sentence in light of Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 and jury's "apparent disregard" of several mitigating factors

    Second, it is questionable whether the statements made by the prospective jurors in the present case come within the prohibition established by C.Cr.P. 775(6). The article in question appears to contemplate factual misstatements such as those encountered in State v. Forbes, 348 So.2d 983 (La. 1977), where the venireman failed to reveal his relationship to certain law enforcement officers. In the instant case, the allegedly dishonest responses concerned the jurors' subjective appreciation of criminal responsibility, and cannot be considered "False statements of a juror on voir dire."

  6. State v. Moeller

    178 Conn. 67 (Conn. 1979)   Cited 29 times
    In State v. Moeller, 178 Conn. 67, 420 A.2d 1153, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 950, 100 S.Ct. 423, 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1979), we reviewed an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss where the claimed ground of dismissal was that the state prosecution placed the defendant in double jeopardy.

    See, e.g., People v. Hines, 572 P.2d 467 (Colo. 1977); State v. Rogers, 90 N.M. 604, 566 P.2d 1142 (1977); State v. Forbes, 348 So.2d 983 (La. 1977); Crane v. State, 555 P.2d 845 (Nev. 1976); Stathes v. State, 29 Md. App. 474, 349 A.2d 254 (1975); State v. Turley, 518 S.W.2d 207 (Mo.App. 1974); Klein v. Murtagh, 44 App.Div.2d 465, 355 N.Y.S.2d 622 (1974); People v. Belcher, 11 Cal.3d 91, 520 P.2d 385 (1974); State v. Cooper, 54 N.J. 330, 255 A.2d 232 (1969); State v. Castonguay, 240 A.2d 747 (Me. 1968). Notwithstanding this universally accepted principle of federal law, the defendant argues that the principle allowing successive prosecutions has been eroded by three subsequent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, which, it is claimed, suggest that the attitude of the court may have changed since Bartkus and Abbate.

  7. Commonwealth v. Cepulonis

    374 Mass. 487 (Mass. 1978)   Cited 41 times
    In Commonwealth v. Cepulonis, 374 Mass. 487 (1978), we held that if the elements of a crime for which a defendant faces prosecution are the same as the elements of a crime for which he or she has already faced prosecution, the second prosecution may be barred on double jeopardy grounds.

    See Abraham v. Supreme Court of Bronx County, 37 N.Y.2d 560 (1975). See, e.g., State v. Tiche, 33 Conn. Sup. 51 (1976); State v. Castonguay, 240 A.2d 747 (Me. 1968); Stathes v. State, 29 Md. App. 474, 481 (1975), appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803 (1976); State v. Glover, 500 S.W.2d 271, 274 (Mo. App. 1973); State v. Pope, 190 Neb. 689 (1973); State v. Cooper, 54 N.J. 330 (1969); State v. Rogers, 90 N.M. 604 (1977); State v. Forbes, 348 So.2d 983, 988 (La. 1977). Owing, perhaps, to the sound exercise of discretion by prosecutors, this court has not had to decide squarely a jeopardy question where the Commonwealth has prosecuted an offense already tried in another competent jurisdiction.

  8. State v. Brooks

    350 So. 2d 1174 (La. 1977)   Cited 39 times

    " State v. Dotson, 260 La. 471, 256 So.2d 594 (1971). See State v. Forbes, La., 348 So.2d 983 (1977); State v. Collins, La., So.2d 674 (1976). Immediately after the crime, Mr. Lemons described one perpetrator as wearing a blue, long-sleeved shirt with white flowers.

  9. State v. Phillips

    809 So. 2d 467 (La. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    In recent decisions this Court has adhered to the principle developed in the federal decisions by holding that, under the doctrine of double jeopardy, a subsequent prosecution by a different sovereign is constitutionally permissible under both Federal and State Constitutions. State v. Forbes, 348 So.2d 983 (La. 1977); State v. de la Beckwith, 344 So.2d 360 (La. 1977). Applying this principle to the instant case, the subsequent state prosecution of these defendants on a similar charge for which they were previously prosecuted in federal court did not place them twice in jeopardy for the same offense under the Federal and State Constitutions.

  10. State v. Martin

    558 So. 2d 654 (La. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 69 times
    In Martin, this Court found no abuse of discretion in a trial court's declaration of a mistrial when a juror failed to provide information which was specifically requested (her panel had been specifically questioned concerning whether or not a close friend or relative had been a crime victim), and thereby concealed a possible ground for disqualification or challenge (the defendant had been on trial for, inter alia, aggravated rape, and the juror's younger sister had been a victim of rape).

    Accordingly, in this context, we find that her failure to provide information which was specifically requested, thereby concealing a possible ground for disqualification or challenge, is equivalent to a false statement. Cf. State v. Forbes, 348 So.2d 983 (La. 1977). When false statements are made by a juror on voir dire, it is discretionary with the trial court whether or not to order a mistrial.