Court Opinion

ID: 9669856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:10:04.363078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:00.653206
License: Public Domain

HAWTHORNE,
Justice.
I respectfully dissent from the ruling on bills numbered 6, 7, and 8, because I do not think that the authorities cited in the majority opinion are pertinent or controlling. In none of the cases cited was the ruling of the court based on the fact that an improper question was asked in the presence of jurors already selected. In the principal case relied upon, State v. Henry, 197 La. 999, 3 So.2d 104, the trial judge refused to sustain objections to improper questions, all peremptory challenges were exhausted, and the defense was compelled to accept jurors who stated that, if they were convinced from the evidence that the accused was guilty and if in .their opinion there were no mitigating circumstances, they would render a verdict carrying with it the death penalty.
As I understand the record in the instant case, none of the prospective jurors to whom the questions were propounded was challenged for cause by the defense', none of them served on the jury, and the defense did not exhaust its peremptory challenges. Conceding that the question was improper-examination of a prospective juror on his voir dire, I fail to understand how the defense was prejudiced under the above facts and circumstances.
I respectfully dissent.