The ruling of the trial court was not an abuse of his discretion. State v. Richmond, 278 So.2d 17 (La. 1973); State v. Heard, 263 La. 484, 268 So.2d 628 (1972); State v. Owen, 126 La. 646, 52 So. 860 (1910). The bill is without merit.
In each instance the venireman stated he could bring in a verdict of guilty without capital punishment. For the reasons assigned in State v. Richmond, 278 So.2d 17 (La. 1973), these bills of exceptions are moot. Bills of Exceptions Nos. 14, 15 and 16
Moreover, other state courts have held that even though a prospective juror who has contact with a trial attorney that is mandated by statute, the juror is not automatically disqualified. See State v. Richmond, 278 So.2d 17, 20 (La. 1973) (upholding a trial court's rejection of a challenge for cause of a prospective juror who was the registrar of voters for the local parish when the registrar was statutorily represented by the district attorney's office and, during the criminal trial, was in fact represented by the district attorney's office in a federal lawsuit regarding the reapportionment of the parish); State v. Johnson, 712 P.2d 301, 305 (Wash.App. 1985) (rejecting an abuse of discretion argument with regard to a prospective juror who was employed by the state department of social and health services, who frequently was involved with the juvenile court, and whose department was statutorily represented by the state attorney general's office in legal proceedings); State v. Radi, 578 P.2d 1169, 1175 (Mont. 1978) (stating that the statutory scheme in Montana did "not permit an automatic challenge for cause solely for the reason that a prospective juror in a criminal case is also a county officer" and that "[t]he simpl
The only exception to the requirement of notice of intent to use other crimes evidence is as to evidence of offenses which are part of the res gestae, or convictions used to impeach defendant's testimony. State v. Prieur, supra; see State v. Williams, 375 So.2d 364 (La. 1979); State v. Molinario, 383 So.2d 345 (La. 1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 882, 101 S.Ct. 232, 66 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980); State v. Boyd, 359 So.2d 931 (La. 1978); State v. Brown, 340 So.2d 1306 (La. 1976); State v. Flowers, 337 So.2d 469 (La. 1976); State v. Mays, 315 So.2d 766 (La. 1975); State v. Richmond, 278 So.2d 17 (La. 1973). The reason no notice is required as to res gestae evidence is that for evidence of the other crime to so qualify, the other crime must be so closely connected that the indictment or information as to the instant crime is deemed to carry with it notice as to the other crimes as well.
An objection to the admissibility of testimony comes to late after the testimony has gone to the jury. State v. Richmond, 278 So.2d 17 (La. 1973); State v. Foster, 164 La. 813, 114 So. 696 (1927). La. Code Crim.P. art. 774 provides that the argument shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case.
We find that Mrs. Berard's relationship to the victims, considering the testimony of the prospective juror, was not so close that one might reasonably conclude that it would have influenced her in arriving at a verdict. See, also State v. Crochet, supra; State v. Blanton, supra; State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La. 1974); State v. Taylor, 282 So.2d 491 (La. 1973); reversed on other grounds, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 704, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975); State v. Richmond, 278 So.2d 17 (La. 1973); State v. Rideau, 242 La. 431, 137 So.2d 283 (1962), reversed on other grounds, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663. Relationship to law enforcement officers does not necessarily require a challenge for cause.
This Court has held in the past that shortness of time spent by a jury in deliberation is not a ground for granting a new trial. See, State v. Richmond, 278 So.2d 17 (La. 1973). ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 13
To bar testimony at trial, a contemporaneous objection is required. State v. Nix, 327 So.2d 301 (La. 1975); State v. Vince, 305 So.2d 916 (La. 1974); State v. Richmond, 278 So.2d 17 (La. 1973); State v. Isaac, 261 La. 487, 260 So.2d 302 (1972). Hence, if the motion to strike is treated as an objection to the testimony, it came too late and cannot be availed of on appeal. La. Code Crim.P. art. 841; State v. Williams, 343 So.2d 1026 (La. 1977).
Article 768 has no application to res gestae statements. State v. Richmond, 278 So.2d 17 (La. 1973). Nos. 8, 9 — Defendant contends photographs of the prescriptions should have been inadmissible in evidence.
There must be a showing that such fact would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict. State v. Blanton, 312 So.2d 329 (La. 1975); State v. Richmond, 278 So.2d 17 (La. 1973); State v. Higginbotham, 261 La. 983, 261 So.2d 638 (1972). The voir dire examination must be considered as a whole.