Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. David R. VANDERPOOL
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1986-09-08
Citations: 493 So. 2d 574
Docket Number: No. 85-K-2110
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. David R. VANDERPOOL.
Judges: CALOGERO, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 493
Pages: 574–577

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. David R. VANDERPOOL.
No. 85-K-2110.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sept. 8, 1986.
Ronald Dewhirst, Martin E. Regan, Jr., New Orleans, for applicant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Francis Dugas, Dist. Atty., Louis Thad Toups, Asst. Dist. Atty., for respondent.

Opinion:
DIXON, Chief Justice.
Vanderpool was charged by bill of information with armed robbery and requested trial by jury. During voir dire he sought to have a deputy sheriff excused from the venire for cause. The trial judge denied the motion, stating, "A deputy sheriff is not a challenge for cause." After further questioning Vanderpool again moved to excuse the deputy:
"Your Honor, I would like to re-urge our challenge for cause on Mr. Pitre. I think due to his substantial involvement in law enforcement."
Again, the motion was denied:
"Well that does not—as I pointed out in reading the Supreme Court rules, the exemption is personal to him and it is not a ground for challenge. He could have been a deputy or a sheriff since he was born. It is not a ground for challenge."
At this point the defendant exercised his fifth of eight peremptory challenges to excuse the deputy. When the jury was empaneled he had two peremptory challenges remaining.
Vanderpool was convicted and appealed the trial court's ruling. The court of appeal affirmed, 476 So.2d 546 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985), finding that Vanderpool failed to object during voir dire or to state the reasons for his objection. C.Cr.P. 800. Certiorari was granted. 481 So.2d 619 (La.1986).
In Louisiana "an actively employed criminal deputy sheriff is not a competent criminal juror." State v. Simmons, 390 So.2d 1317, 1318 (La.1980); La. Const. Art. 1, § 16; C.Cr.P. 797. Simmons expressly overruled contrary jurisprudence and left no doubt of the rule. The trial judge plainly erred in refusing to excuse the deputy.
Our law is also settled that an objection need not be raised by incantation. "It is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which he desires the court to take, or of his objections to the action of the court, and the grounds therefor." C.Cr.P. 841; State v. Boutte, 384 So.2d 773 (La.1980). The requirement that objection be raised contemporaneously is not meant to be inflexible, but is designed "to promote judicial efficiency and to insure fair play." State v. Lee, 346 So.2d 682, 684 (La.1977). Article 800 should not be read to differ in this respect from Article 841. Prom the trial court's response to defendant's motion, it is clear enough that Vanderpool made it known he wanted the deputy excused and voiced the reasons why. This is sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.
Act 181 of 1983 gives no reason, however, to disregard "the sacramental language" of C.Cr.P. 921; we interpret this amendment to Article 800 only to eliminate a procedural prerequisite to appeal. Without suggesting that exhaustion of peremptory challenges is necessary, in every case, to defeat application of the harmless error rule, the conviction under consideration must be affirmed because Vanderpool has failed to establish prejudice from the trial court's ruling. The deputy did not serve on the jury. Ten jurors had been selected when he was excused. No other objectionable juror was seated for want of peremptory challenges; nor did Vanderpool accept a questionable juror in hoarding remaining challenges. Under these circumstances, a new trial will not be required.
The conviction is affirmed.
CALOGERO, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
LEMON, J., subscribes to the opinion and assigns additional reasons.
. As amended by Act 181 of 1983, C.Cr.P. 800 provides in pertinent part:
"A. A defendant may not assign as error a ruling refusing to sustain a challenge for cause made by him unless an objection thereto is made at the time of the ruling. The nature of the objection and grounds therefor shall be stated at the time of objection."
Prior to the 1983 amendment, this paragraph read:
"A defendant cannot complain of a ruling refusing to sustain a challenge for cause made by him, unless his peremptory challenges shall have been exhausted before the completion of the panel."
. See C.Cr.P. 921, Comment (a), which states: "This article retains the sacramental language of former R.S. 15:557 . This article sets forth the basic concept of appellate review and is the primary legislative mandate governing ap-peals_"
Article 921 provides:
"A judgment or ruling shall not be reversed by an appellate court because of any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights of the accused."