State v. Henry

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Henry

187 So. 3d 984, 2016 La. LEXIS 708, 2016 WL 1175617

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 24, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-K-2300

StatusPublished

This text of 187 So. 3d 984 (State v. Henry) 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 v. Henry, 187 So. 3d 984, 2016 La. LEXIS 708, 2016 WL 1175617 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

I (Writ granted. The court of appeal erred in relying on the unsworn and informal comments of an unidentified juror to find extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention. The court of appeal is correct, however, that the district court erred in not questioning the jurors further, within [985]*985the limitations provided by La.C.E. art. 606(B), when it became apparent that extraneous prejudicial information might have been improperly brought to their attention. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the district court, which is directed to conduct an evidentiary hearing. At this hearing, the testimony of jurors will be admissible to show whether and how jurors became aware of the death of Ms. Schenk. However, under La.Code Evid. art. 606(B), no juror may testify to the actual impact this information had on his mind or verdict. Nor may he speculate as to the impact it had on the mind of another juror.

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

PER CURIAM.

I (Writ granted. The court of appeal erred in relying on the unsworn and informal comments of an unidentified juror to find extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention. The court of appeal is correct, however, that the district court erred in not questioning the jurors further, within [985]*985the limitations provided by La.C.E. art. 606(B), when it became apparent that extraneous prejudicial information might have been improperly brought to their attention. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the district court, which is directed to conduct an evidentiary hearing. At this hearing, the testimony of jurors will be admissible to show whether and how jurors became aware of the death of Ms. Schenk. However, under La.Code Evid. art. 606(B), no juror may testify to the actual impact this information had on his mind or verdict. Nor may he speculate as to the impact it had on the mind of another juror.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 So. 3d 984, 2016 La. LEXIS 708, 2016 WL 1175617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-henry-la-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack