A trial court is not required to render a suspended sentence for a first felony offense, but may consider whatever factors and evidence are deemed important to a determination of the best interest of the public and the defendant. State v. Scriber, 605 So.2d 661, 665 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1992). In the instant matter, the court's decision to ignore the recommendation of the PSI and impose a stricter sentence is disturbing because it is based upon unsupported evidentiary facts.
A trial court is not required to render a suspended sentence for a first felony offense, but may consider whatever factors and evidence are deemed important to a determination of the best interest of the public and the defendant. State v. Scriber, 605 So.2d 661, 665 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1992). In the instant matter, the court's decision to ignore the recommendation of the PSI and impose a stricter sentence is disturbing because it is based upon unsupported evidentiary facts.
State v. Monroe, 366 So.2d 1345 (La.1978), appeal after remand, 397 So.2d 1258 (La.1981), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S.Ct. 3571, 77 L.Ed.2d 1411, reh. denied, 463 U.S. 1249, 104 S.Ct. 36, 77 L.Ed.2d 1455 (1983). State v. Scriber, 605 So.2d 661, 664 (La.App. 2 Cir.1992). As it applies in this matter, La.Code Crim.P. art. 797(4) provides that “[t]he state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that ... [t]he juror will not accept the law as given to him by the court [.]”
State v. Monroe, 366 So.2d 1345 (La.1978), appeal after remand, 397 So.2d 1258 (La.1981), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S.Ct. 3571, 77 L.Ed.2d 1411, reh. denied, 463 U.S. 1249, 104 S.Ct. 36, 77 L.Ed.2d 1455 (1983).State v. Scriber, 605 So.2d 661, 664 (La.App. 2 Cir.1992). As it applies in this matter, La.Code Crim.P. art. 797(4) provides that “[t]he state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that ... [t]he juror will not accept the law as given to him by the court [.]”
To establish reversible error on a denial of a challenge for cause, an accused need not only demonstrate an erroneous ruling, but also that he, as occurred here, exhausted his peremptory challenges before completion of the jury panel. State v. Lee, 93-2810 (La. 5/23/94), 637 So.2d 102; State v. Plater, 26,252 (La.App. 2d Cir. 9/21/94), 643 So.2d 313, writ denied, 94-2608 (La. 2/3/95), 649 So.2d 402; State v. Scriber, 605 So.2d 661 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1992). The trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on a challenge for cause, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of that discretion.
State v. Accardo, 466 So.2d 549 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1985), writ denied, 468 So.2d 1204 and State v. Abercrumbia, 412 So.2d 1027 (La. 1982), cited by the defendant in support of a lesser sentence, are easily distinguishable from this case in that the defendants did not lie in wait for the victims nor were the injuries inflicted in those cases as severe as Mrs. Aldridge's. In State v. Scriber, 605 So.2d 661 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1992), the battery victim sustained a broken collarbone, fractured right knee, two fractured ribs, bruises on her eye, kidneys, and 20 bruises elsewhere on her body. This court affirmed a two-year sentence for this crime of second degree battery.
In order to prevail on this alleged error, the defendant must show, inter alia, that he exhausted all of his peremptory challenges. State v. Lee, 559 So.2d 1310, 1316 (La. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 954, 111 S.Ct. 1431, 113 L.Ed.2d 482 (1991); State v. Scriber, 605 So.2d 661 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1992). In this case, the defendant failed to show he exercised all of his peremptory challenges.
She is thus entitled to complain on appeal of the ruling refusing to maintain her challenge for cause. La. Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 800 (West Supp. 1994); State v. Scriber, 605 So.2d 661 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1992); State v. Isgitt, 590 So.2d 763 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1991). An accused in a criminal case is constitutionally entitled to a full and complete voir dire examination.
To establish reversible error anent the denial of a challenge for cause, an accused need not only demonstrate an erroneous ruling, but also that he, as occurred here, exhausted his peremptory challenges before completion of the jury panel. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 800, Official Revision Comment (a); State v. Lee, 93-2810 (La. 05/23/94), 637 So.2d 102; State v. Scriber, 605 So.2d 661 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1992). The trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on a challenge for cause, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of that discretion.
In that the trial court is vested with broad discretion in addressing such an issue, its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless a review of the entire voir dire indicates abuse. State v. Ross, supra, State v. Essex, 618 So.2d 659 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1993); State v. Scriber, 605 So.2d 661 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1992); State v. Haynes, 514 So.2d 1206 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1987). During voir dire, prospective juror Michael Wayne Chatham disclosed that he worked regularly from 4:00 p.m. until midnight and had been requested, by his employer, to report to the job as soon as his jury obligation ended each day.