Case Title: State v. Buggage

Citation: 351 So. 2d 95

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-10-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
351 So. 2d 95 (1977) STATE of Louisiana v. Leonard BUGGAGE. No. 59388. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 10, 1977. Robert Zibilich, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendantappellant. *96 William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Brian G. Meissner, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee. SANDERS, Chief Justice. The Grand Jury of Orleans Parish indicted the defendant with aggravated rape, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:42. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and he was sentenced to death by electrocution. On appeal, defendant relies upon eight assignments of error for reversal of his conviction and sentence. Finding merit in defendant's Assignment of Error No. 1, it is unnecessary to discuss defendant's remaining assignments of error. After the selection and swearing in of the petit jury and an alternate juror, one of the regular jurors informed the judge and later both the assistant district attorney and defense counsel in the presence of the judge "that she misunderstood the [voir dire] questions about capital punishment and she is opposed to capital punishment and under no circumstances could she return a verdict of guilty as charged carrying the death penalty." [Tr. p. 2.] The trial judge excused this juror for cause and called an additional venireman for examination to replace the excused juror. Defendant objected to the voir dire of an additional juror and moved for a mistrial, presumably relying upon Article 775(6) of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure which allows a judge to order a mistrial and dismiss the jury when false statements of a juror on voir dire prevent a fair trial. The judge denied the requested mistrial; decided not to reopen voir dire; excused the venireman called; and named the alternate juror, who had already been sworn, as the twelfth juror. He named the alternate in spite of his acknowledgement that neither counsel wished this action: "It's my understanding that both counsel desire for the present for the alternate to remain in that status as of this time." [Tr. p. 2.] At this point, defense counsel noted his objection to the denial of the mistrial. Recently, in State v. Rounsavall, La., 337 So. 2d 190 (1976), we held the identical procedure used here replacing a regular juror under these circumstances with an alternate to be reversible error. That decision is dispositive of the present case. There, we stated: For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are reversed and set aside, and the case is remanded for a new trial consistent with law and the views herein expressed.