The state appellate court specifically considered and found no error in this decision. State v. Leichman, 286 So.2d 649, 653 (La. 1973), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 907, 95 S.Ct. 824, 42 L.Ed.2d 836 (1975). It found that Mr. Rockett "would accept the instructions of the court and render an impartial verdict in accordance with the law and the evidence."
This Court has consistently upheld our constitutional (Article VII, Section 41) and statutory (Article 402 C.Cr.P.) law exempting women from jury service as not violative of the due process and equal protection clauses. State v. Washington, 292 So.2d 234 (La. 1974); State v. Leichman, 286 So.2d 649 (La. 1973). Likewise, we rejected the same contention of a women defendant indicated for murder in considering her motion to quash on the ground that women were excluded from jury service in State v. Stevenson, 292 So.2d 488 (La. 1974).
See State v. Roberson, 159 La. 562, 105 So. 621 (1925). Cf. State v. Beavers, 394 So.2d 1218 (La. 1981); State v. Leichman, 286 So.2d 649 (La. 1973). Therefore, this assignment of error lacks merit.
State v. Jack, 285 So.2d 204 (La. 1973). See also State v. Baggett, 292 So.2d 201 (La. 1974); State v. Leichman, 286 So.2d 649 (La. 1973). I therefore concur.
It requires, in addition, proof of such prejudice in the public mind that a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained in the parish. State v. Stewart, 325 So.2d 819 (La. 1976); State v. Dillard, 320 So.2d 116 (La. 1975); State v. Flood, 301 So.2d 637 (La. 1974); State v. Leichman, 286 So.2d 649 (La. 1973); State v. Richmond, 284 So.2d 317 (La. 1973). In the instant case, defendants have failed to meet the burden of proof.
The shooting of Jones was clearly a part of the res gestae and therefore admissible. State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 (La. 1976); State v. Leichman, 286 So.2d 649, cert. den. 420 U.S. 907, 95 S.Ct. 824, 42 L.Ed.2d 836 (1973). In addition, in order to avoid any undue prejudice to the defendants, the trial judge instructed the jury both during the witness' testimony and again in his charge to the jury that the defendants were not on trial for the shooting of the witness, Jones, and could not be convicted for that shooting.
It requires, in addition, proof of such prejudice in the public mind that a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained. State v. Stewart, 325 So.2d 819 (La. 1976); State v. Dillard, 320 So.2d 116 (La. 1975); State v. Monk, 315 So.2d 727 (La. 1975); State v. Flood, 301 So.2d 637 (La. 1974); State v. Leichman, 286 So.2d 649 (La. 1973); State v. Richmond, 284 So.2d 317 (La. 1973). Moreover, the granting or denial of a change of venue rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling denying a venue change will not be disturbed unless evidence affirmatively shows that the ruling was erroneous and an abuse of judicial discretion.
La.C.Cr.P. arts. 621, 622. See, e.g.: State v. Stewart, La., 325 So.2d 819 (1976); State v. Butler, 322 So.2d 189 (La. 1975); State v. Dupuy, 319 So.2d 294 (La. 1975); State v. Flood, 301 So.2d 637 (La. 1974); State v. Leichman, 286 So.2d 649 (La. 1973); State v. Richmond, 278 So.2d 17 (La. 1973). The trial court correctly denied a change of venue.
Here, defendant has failed to show any systematic exclusion of black persons or any disproportionately low representation of blacks on juries or jury venires in Evangeline Parish. He, therefore, has failed to make a prima facie showing. State v. Butler, La., 302 So.2d 585 (1974); State v. Leichman, La., 286 So.2d 649 (1973). In the absence of a prima facie showing of an historical, systematic pattern of exclusion of black jurors, the motive for the exercise of the peremptory challenge is not subject to our review.
There must be proof of such prejudice in the public mind that a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained in the parish in question. State v. Berry, supra.; State v. Stewart, supra.; State v. Flood, 301 So.2d 637 (La. 1974); State v. Leichman, 286 So.2d 649 (La. 1973). However, under the test set forth in article 622 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the fact that a jury can be selected, i. e., that the requisite number of jurors are not subject to a valid challenge for cause, does not mandate the conclusion that a motion for change of venue was properly denied by the trial court.