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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
" 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.
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.
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.