Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Dorothy J. CONRAD
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1974-12-02
Citations: 304 So. 2d 318
Docket Number: No. 54367
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Dorothy J. CONRAD.
Judges: SANDERS, C. J., dissents for the reasons assigned by SUMMERS, J.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 304
Pages: 318–322

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Dorothy J. CONRAD.
No. 54367.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Dec. 2, 1974.
Bernard J. Bagert, Jr., Bagert & Bagert, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
BARHAM, Justice.
Appellant was convicted after a trial by jury of possession of marijuana and was sentenced to serve six months in jail and to pay a fine of $250. Although fourteen bills of exceptions were perfected only three are relied upon for a reversal of appellant's conviction and sentence. Finding merit in appellant's arguments relative to Bill of Exceptions No. 2, we pretermit a discussion of the other bills of exceptions.
Bill of Exceptions No. 2 was reserved when the trial court refused to allow defense counsel to elicit from several prospective jurors the answers to the following questions:
"Gentlemen, we have a serious drug problem in this state, in this country. Will that and the fact that this is a drug case in any way affect your impartial judgment in this case? Do you feel that a person charged with possession of a large quantity of Marijuana, for example, should satisfy you as to her innocence ?"
The defendant argues that the trial court's refusal to allow her to elicit this information from the prospective jurors improperly curtailed her right to voir dire examination. In its per curiam to this bill of exceptions, the trial court sets forth its position that defendant's question regarding the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence was improper because it asked the prospective jurors to commit themselves in advance on a matter of evidence to be introduced at trial. The State likewise argues in brief that questions which seek to secure advance commitments by prospective jurors on trial issues are properly disallowed by the trial court.
It is clear to us that the question asked by defense counsel regarding the prospective jurors' ability to exercise impartial judgment despite their possible attitudes toward drug crimes and the question dealing with the prospective jurors' beliefs about the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence which should obtain in the prosecution do not constitute questions seeking advance commitment on possible trial issues. Defendant's questions were merely an attempt to uncover any prejudice or predisposition existing in the prospective jurors' minds which would hamper their ability to impartially judge the defendant and afford her the presumption of innocence and the right to require the State to meet its burden of proof to which she was entitled under the law.
We hold that the trial court's disallowance of the above-quoted questions which defendant sought to ask prospective jurors constitutes curtailment of voir dire examination improper under State v. Jones, 282 So.2d 422 (La.1973). The inquiry which defendant sought to make was a reasonable effort to obtain information which would have facilitated the intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges and challenges for cause which the law affords a criminal defendant. The refusal to allow such inquiry amounts to an abuse of the discretion to delineate the scope of the voir dire examination with which the trial court is vested under La.Code of Criminal Procedure article 786.
For the reasons set forth, the defendant's conviction and sentence are reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
SANDERS, C. J., dissents for the reasons assigned by SUMMERS, J.
SUMMERS, J., dissents for the reasons assigned.
TATE, J., also assigns additional concurring reasons.
MARCUS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.