State v. Forbes

1 Citing case

  1. 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."