State v. Mickey
State v. Mickey, 626 So. 2d 24 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993).
Cited by
- State Of Louisiana v. Joshua James Simon La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
- State v. Williams 101 So. 3d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
- Able v. Vulcan Materials Co. 94 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
- State v. Dyer 682 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
- State v. Stacy 665 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
- State v. Washington 646 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
- State v. Washington 646 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Thomas 589 So. 2d 555
Opinion text
LeBLANC, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion holds as reversible error restrictions by the trial court on voir dire examination. The defendant should be allowed to make inquiries of prospective jurors as will enable him to secure his constitutional rights by eliciting facts which show grounds for challenge. However, voir dire examination may not encompass unlimited inquiry into all possible prejudices of prospective jurors.... State v. Thomas, 589 So.2d 555, 565 (La.App. 1st Cir.1991). The limitation enforced by the trial court consisted of excluding questions relating to family members of prospective jurors. Although, family member questions were not allowed, questions pertaining to prejudice against drug offenders or others connected with drugs were allowed. This was sufficient to identify those with a predisposition against the defendant. A review of the voir dire as a whole convinces me the defendant was afforded full and fair examination of the prospective jurors. Accordingly, the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the imposition of the limitation. For the above reason, I respectfully dissent.