State v. Richmond

33 Citing cases

  1. State v. Nix

    327 So. 2d 301 (La. 1976)   Cited 109 times
    In State v. Nix, La., 327 So.2d 301; State v. Smith, La., 322 So.2d 197; State v. Huckaby, La., 368 So.2d 1059; State v. George, La., 273 So.2d 34; and in numerous other cases, this Court found probable cause even though the affidavits had discrepancies of various magnitude.

    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.

  2. State v. Richmond

    284 So. 2d 317 (La. 1973)   Cited 78 times
    In Richmond, this Court declined to find that a trial court had abused its discretion in denying a recess, request of which was based on the absence of the only defense witness.

    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

  3. People v. Rhodus

    870 P.2d 470 (Colo. 1994)   Cited 28 times
    Noting that challenges for cause under section 16-10-103 are "mandatory"

    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

  4. State v. Goza

    408 So. 2d 1349 (La. 1982)   Cited 38 times
    In State v. Goza, 408 So.2d 1349 (La., 1982), the state convinced a jury that defendant Goza had hired someone to kill her husband. Goza was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, but the conviction and sentence were reversed, the matter remanded and the case dismissed after remand.

    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.

  5. State v. Clark

    387 So. 2d 1124 (La. 1980)   Cited 50 times
    In State v. Clark, 387 So.2d 1124 (La. 1980), the defendant, a 24-year-old white male, and another man forced their way into a Red Lobster restaurant and held the assistant manager at gun- and knifepoint while they emptied the safe.

    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.

  6. State v. Sonnier

    379 So. 2d 1336 (La. 1980)   Cited 129 times
    Reversing death sentence and remanding for a new trial on the penalty issue after finding that the jury, which had previously been informed during the sentencing hearing that defendant was quite capable of renewed irrational and aggressive behavior, could have concluded that the defendant would be eligible for work release, creating juror fear, an arbitrary factor which may have contributed to the sentence.

    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.

  7. State v. Crochet

    354 So. 2d 1288 (La. 1978)   Cited 19 times
    In State v. Crochet, 354 So.2d 1288, 1292 (La. 1977), rehearing denied 1978, this court stated that "[t]he refusal to appoint available psychiatrists to a sanity commission would constitute an abuse of discretion, but in the absence of a showing that such a specialist was available for appointment there is no trial error."

    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

  8. State v. Provost

    352 So. 2d 661 (La. 1977)   Cited 20 times

    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).

  9. State v. Brown

    352 So. 2d 690 (La. 1977)   Cited 12 times
    In Brown this Court reversed a conviction for possession of phenmetrazine and forgery of a prescription for phenmetrazine on the basis that there was no evidence that defendant knew that the prescription was forged.

    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.

  10. 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.

    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.