State v. Leichman

29 Citing cases

  1. Leichman v. Secretary, La. Dept., Corrections

    939 F.2d 315 (5th Cir. 1991)   Cited 8 times
    In Leichman v. Secretary, 939 F.2d 315 (5th Cir. 1991), a panel of this court accepted the same Taylor/Griffith argument that Fulford had unsuccessfully pressed.

    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."

  2. State v. Flood

    301 So. 2d 637 (La. 1974)   Cited 50 times
    Involving a blood test to determine the presence of arsenic, which blood does not manufacture or otherwise contain if not properly drawn and preserved

    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).

  3. State v. Morris

    429 So. 2d 111 (La. 1983)   Cited 57 times
    In Morris at 429 So.2d 118, this Court said: "The record before us demonstrates convincingly that by the time of the final voir dire, public and media attention were no longer focused on the case."

    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.

  4. State v. Reid

    340 So. 2d 551 (La. 1976)   Cited 6 times
    In State v. Reid, 340 So.2d 551 (La. 1976), the court was called upon to decide whether the method of selecting the general venire in Calcasieu Parish conformed with the law.

    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.

  5. State v. Clark

    340 So. 2d 208 (La. 1976)   Cited 62 times
    In State v. Clark, 340 So.2d 208 (La. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 936, 97 S.Ct. 1563 (1977), this court held that no cause challenge should have been granted because the victim had prepared the juror's tax returns for several years and occasionally the juror saw the victim around town.

    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.

  6. State v. Owens

    338 So. 2d 645 (La. 1976)   Cited 12 times

    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.

  7. State v. Morris

    340 So. 2d 195 (La. 1976)   Cited 45 times

    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.

  8. State v. Ford

    336 So. 2d 817 (La. 1976)   Cited 31 times
    In State v. Ford, 336 So.2d 817, 821 (La. 1976), we held specifically that even the acts of pointing to and selecting a photograph constitute such assertive conduct and that testimony about these acts is hearsay, "an assertive communication introduced for the truth of the assertion thereby made."

    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.

  9. State v. Anderson

    332 So. 2d 452 (La. 1976)   Cited 15 times
    In Anderson, supra, a deputy sheriff had been told of Anderson's involvement in a homicide at Soileau's Grocery. The deputy knew Anderson and went from the grocery to Anderson's home where he advised Anderson only of his right to remain silent.

    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.

  10. State v. Rudolph

    332 So. 2d 806 (La. 1976)   Cited 27 times

    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.