 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Guillory3/11/1998
sequences of what he is saying.
Although the Defendant presented evidence concerning his intoxication at the time of his confession, the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant freely and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent and to consult with an attorney before he gave his confession. The evidence presented did not establish that the Defendant was intoxicated to a degree that it negated his comprehension and rendered him unconscious of the consequences of what he said. Robinson, 384 So.2d 332. The remaining statements made by the Defendant to Mickle Cady and Deputy Sconnie Granger were also found to be voluntarily given, and we find that there was no error in this ruling.
This argument lacks merit.
ARGUMENT NO. 2 Ä ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 20
The Defendant next complains that the indictment should have been quashed because there was discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreperson. Also, the Defendant argues that Judge Arthur Planchard should have been recused. Again, the Defendant presented this issue in a pretrial writ application, State v. Guillory, 95-437 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/8/95), writ denied, 95-1435 (La. 9/22/95); 660 So.2d 483, and this court denied the Defendant's request for relief.
Turning to the merits of the Defendant's claim, this argument has been addressed in the case of State v. Young, 569 So.2d 570 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1990), writ denied, 575 So.2d 386 (La. 1991). The case of Young is factually similar to the present case since the defendant in Young introduced evidence about the racial makeup of the population of the parish but he did not introduce evidence about the racial makeup of the qualified members of the general venire or grand jury venire. As the Young opinion illustrates, the focus is not upon the general population, but upon those members of the general population qualified to serve on the grand jury.
By means of this assignment, defendant contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to quash the indictment based on the alleged racially discriminatory selection of grand jury forepersons. Defendant argues that his right to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated by the systematic exclusion of blacks from service as grand jury foremen. Relying on Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 99 S.Ct. 2993, 61 L.Ed.2d 739 (1979); Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977); and Guice v. Fortenberry, 722 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1984), defendant submits that, once he established a prima facie showing of racial discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreperson, the burden shifted to the state to rebut the presumption by showing that the pattern of under representation of blacks was the result of a racially neutral selection procedure. On appeal, the state maintains that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
In Rose v. Mitchell (quoting from Castaneda v. Partida), the Supreme Court set forth the standards applicable to a claim of racial discrimination in the selection of grand jury forepersons as follows:
"` n order to show that an equal protection violation has occurred in the context of grand jury [foreman] selection, the defendant must show that the procedure employed resulted in substantial under representation of his race or of the identifiable group to which he belongs.' Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S., at 494, 97 S.Ct., at 1280. Specifically, respondents were required to prove their prima facie case with regard to the foreman as follows:
`The first step is to establish that the group is
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|