Cited by

general objection on the record to the composition of the jury, an objection that counsel had been forced to accept an obnoxious juror as the result of the trial court’s erroneous ruling on one or more cause challenges has not been an aspect of the Court’s jurisprudence for preserving error in the denial of cause challenges for over 50 So.2d 221 (1942) was legislatively superceded in the 1966 revisions to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

composition of the jury, an objection that counsel had been forced to accept an obnoxious juror as the result of the trial court's erroneous ruling on one or more cause challenges has not been an aspect of the Court's jurisprudence for preserving error in the denial of cause challenges for over 50 So.2d 221 (1942) was legislatively super[s]eded in the 1966 revisions to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ted counsel for not making a general objection on the record to the composition of the jury, an objection that counsel had been forced to accept an obnoxious juror as the result of the trial court's erroneous ruling on one or more cause challenges has not been an aspect of the Court's jurisprudence for preserving error in the denial of cause challenges for over 50 years since State v. Breedlove , , (1942) was legislatively super[s]eded in the 1966 revisions to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In that case, we noted that the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure (Acts 1966, No. 310) became effective January 1, 1967, and that Article 800 of the Code was intended, as the Official Revision Comment notes, to change the law by legislatively overruling[3] this court’s So.2d 221 (1942).

general objection on the record to the composition of the jury, an objection that counsel had been forced to accept an obnoxious juror as the result of the trial court‟s erroneous ruling on one or more cause challenges has not been an aspect of the Court‟s jurisprudence for preserving error in the denial of cause challenges for over 50 So.2d 221 (1942) was 4 The strike sheets show Defendant used all his peremptory challenges.

lted counsel for not making a general objection on the record to the composition of the jury, an objection that counsel had been forced to accept an obnoxious juror as the result of the trial court’s erroneous ruling on one or more cause challenges has not been an aspect of the Court’s jurisprudence for preserving error in the denial of cause challenges for over 50 , (1942) was | legislatively superseded in the 1966 revisions to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

general objection on the record to the composition of the jury, an objection that counsel had been forced to accept an obnoxious juror as the result of the trial court’s erroneous ruling on one or more cause challenges has not been an aspect of the Court’s jurisprudence for preserving error in the denial of cause challenges for over 50 So.2d 221 (1942) was legislatively superceded in the 1966 revisions to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

230 that ‘the jurisprudence of this State is well-established that the acts of an officer de facto, so far as they affect the public, should be recognized as valid.’ ” Id.

So.2d 221 (1942), this court held that three requirements were necessary before the ruling of a trial judge refusing to sustain a defendant's challenge for cause constituted reversible error: (1) an erroneous ruling refusing to sustain the defendant’s challenge for cause; (2) exhaustion of a

(1942), this court held that three requirements were necessary before the ruling of a trial judge refusing to sustain a defendant’s challenge for cause constituted reversible error: (1) an erroneous *861 ruling refusing to sustain the defendant’s challenge for cause; (2) exhaustion of all of the defendan

lted counsel for not making a general objection on the record to the composition of the jury, an objection that counsel had been forced to accept an obnoxious juror as the result of the trial court's erroneous ruling on one or more cause challenges has not been an aspect of the Court's jurisprudence for preserving error in the denial of cause challenges for over 50 , (1942) was legislatively superceded in the 1966 revisions to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In that case, we noted that the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure (Acts 1966, No. 310) became effective January 1, 1967, and that Article 800 of the Code was intended, as the Official *1284 Revision Comment notes, , (1942).

(1941) (affirmed on rehearing 1942).

(1942), this court held three requirements were necessary before the ruling of a trial judge refusing to sustain a defendant's challenge for cause constituted reversible error: (1) an erroneous ruling refusing to sustain the defendant's challenge for cause; (2) exhaustion of all of the defendant's peremp

(1942), this court held that three requirements were necessary before the ruling of a trial judge refusing to sustain a defendant's challenge for cause constituted reversible error: (1) an erroneous ruling refusing to sustain the defendant's challenge for cause; (2) exhaustion of all of the defendant's p

(1942), this court held that three requirements were necessary before the ruling of a trial judge refusing to sustain a defendant's challenge for cause constituted reversible error: (1) an erroneous ruling refusing to sustain the defendant's challenge for cause; (2) exhaustion of all of the defendant's p

art. 800 (see also Official 1966 Revision Comment, , (1942) and to overrule legislatively the majority holding therein.)

This has occurred where the trial court has found the defense attorney to be "traveling outside the record," , (1941); State v. McCollum, 135 La.

Our Article 800 , (1942), which required that a defendant who had exhausted *500 his peremptory challenges must in addition show that he was forced to accept an obnoxious juror before a ruling on challenge for cause could be examined on review.

(1942), was specifically discarded when Code of Criminal Procedure Article 800 was adopted, as clearly stated in the Official Revision Comment to that article.

They further argue that under the decisions of this Court, , , and in State v. Oliphant, 220 La.

343 ; , ; State v. Henry, 200 La.

2d 89 ; , ; State v. Holcombe, 41 La.Ann.

230 that `the jurisprudence of this State is well-established that the acts of an officer de facto, so far as they affect the public, should be recognized as valid.'" The final question presented is whether the proposed bond issue and tax levies were so grossly excessive as to constitute a taking

the trial of the case after the exhaustion of the per-' emptory challenges where the defendant needed a peremptory challenge or would have used it against any of the remaining jurors of the panel, it does not appear that he was prejudiced in any substantial right or that the ruling of the trial judge constituted a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right.” , .

*11 993, , 230 that “the jurisprudence of this State is well-established that t,he.acts of an officer de facto, so far as they affect the public, should be recognized as.

In the recent (1941, 1942) , , the question of peremptory challenges was exhaustively discussed.

“By Mr. Ponder: We would like the record to show our note of exception to the Court’s ruling.” In the recent (1941, 1942) , , the question of peremptory challenges was exhaustively discussed.

“Mr. Cook: Yes, sir.” *865 , , relied on by defense counsel, is distinguishable in that the prospective juror therein, unlike the one here, appeared to be prejudiced and also he held a deliberately formed opinion.

and cases cited therein; State v. Broussard, 202 La.

These bills are without merit for in our recent decision in the case of State of Louisiana v. Breedlove, La.Sup., , handed down December 1, 1941, we disposed of this identical issue adversely to defendant’s contention.