State v. Charles
Also decided on this docket: La., November 21, 1979 377 So. 2d 344
State v. Charles, 397 So. 2d 469 (La. 1980).
Cited by
- State of Louisiana in the Interest of G. & B. K.. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
- State in the Interest Of La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
- State In Interest Of G.H. 265 So. 3d 960 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
- State ex rel. G.P. 255 So. 3d 1130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- State in the Interest of G. P. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
- State in the Interest of Drp, Sp, Jmp, Ip La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
- State ex rel. D.R.P. 134 So. 3d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
- State ex rel. M.A.A. 897 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
- Barnes v. Riverwood Apartments Partnership 870 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
- State ex rel. L.S. 814 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
- State ex rel. L.C.B. 805 So. 2d 159 La. 2002
- State Ex Rel. Lcb 805 So. 2d 159 La. 2002
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Charles 377 So. 2d 344
- State v. Hills 354 So. 2d 186
- State v. Simmons 328 So. 2d 149
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. * On November 21, 1979, 377 So.2d 344 , we rendered a decision in this matter, addressing all assigned errors in the formal opinion and in an appendix designated as “Not for Publication.” Upon review we found no grounds for reversal of defendant’s conviction and sentence with the exception of those assignments relating to the trial court’s refusal to conduct an evidentiary hearing on allegations in a motion for new trial that threats to certain members of the jury during the course of the trial had made it impossible for defendant to receive a fair trial. In conclusion we decreed that “the case is remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine the nature of the threats to the jury, which jurors were threatened, and whether the entire jury knew of the threats.” We now amend that decree to clearly indicate the intent of the majority of this Court: Amended Decree Since we find no error with the exception of the trial court’s failure to hold an eviden-tiary hearing on the motion for a new trial, it is not necessary at this time to reverse defendant’s conviction and sentence. See State v. Hills, 354 So.2d 186 (La.1977); State v. Simmons, 328 So.2d 149 (La.1976). Rather the case is remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine the nature of the threats to the jury, which jurors were threatened, and whether the entire jury knew of the threats. We reserve to the trial court the power to grant a new trial should it find that the evidence adduced at this hearing so requires. If, on the other hand, after the taking of evidence, the trial court denies the motion for a new trial, the right to appeal from such a ruling is reserved to the defendant. In the absence of such an appeal, the conviction and sentence are affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. 1 Judge Paul B. Landry, Jr., Retired, sat by ■ assignment as Associate Justice Ad Hoc upon this case. . Because we have this date amended the decree, the time within which to apply for rehearing is reinstated. See La.Sup.Ct. Rules, Rule 9.