State ex rel. Barksdale v. Henderson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Barksdale v. Henderson

242 So. 2d 886, 257 La. 551, 1971 La. LEXIS 4632

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 27, 1971

DocketNo. 51042

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 242 So. 2d 886 (State ex rel. Barksdale v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Barksdale v. Henderson, 242 So. 2d 886, 257 La. 551, 1971 La. LEXIS 4632 (La. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

The showing made does not warrant the exercise of either our original or supervisory jurisdiction. Considering the voir dire examination as a whole, the jurors named in the application were properly challenged for cause under the principles announced in Witherspoon v. Illinois. Moreover, no jury predisposed to capital punishment could have resulted since the defendant may challenge for cause under the law of this state any prospective juror opposed to a qualified verdict. See State v. Henry, 196 La. 217, 198 So. 910 (1941); State v. Jackson, 227 La. 642, 80 So.2d 105 (1955); State v. Weston, 232 La. 766, 95 So.2d 305 (1957). The record discloses that all jurors selected affirmed their willingness to consider a qualified verdict.

HAMLIN, J., concurs on the ground that the showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The showing made does not warrant the exercise of either our original or supervisory jurisdiction. Considering the voir dire examination as a whole, the jurors named in the application were properly challenged for cause under the principles announced in Witherspoon v. Illinois. Moreover, no jury predisposed to capital punishment could have resulted since the defendant may challenge for cause under the law of this state any prospective juror opposed to a qualified verdict. See State v. Henry, 196 La. 217, 198 So. 910 (1941); State v. Jackson, 227 La. 642, 80 So.2d 105 (1955); State v. Weston, 232 La. 766, 95 So.2d 305 (1957). The record discloses that all jurors selected affirmed their willingness to consider a qualified verdict.

HAMLIN, J., concurs on the ground that the showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 So. 2d 886, 257 La. 551, 1971 La. LEXIS 4632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-barksdale-v-henderson-la-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack