State v. Howard

573 So. 2d 481, 1991 WL 9757
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJanuary 25, 1991
Docket90-KK-1747
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 573 So. 2d 481 (State v. Howard) 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. Howard, 573 So. 2d 481, 1991 WL 9757 (La. 1991).

Opinion

573 So.2d 481 (1991)

STATE of Louisiana
v.
Shelia HOWARD.

No. 90-KK-1747.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 25, 1991.
Rehearing Denied February 28, 1991.

James P. Manasseh, Baton Rouge, for Shelia Howard, defendant-applicant.

William Guste, Atty. Gen., Cheney Joseph, Dist. Atty., Robert Piedrahita, Asst. Dist. Atty., Baton Rouge, Gwendolyn Brown, Bossier City, for State of La., plaintiff-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of twelve persons for possession of over twenty-eight grams of cocaine in violation of La.Rev.Stat. 40:967(F). Upon return of the jury with the verdict, the trial court discovered that it had inadvertently failed to dismiss the alternate juror prior to deliberations. Through examination of the jury foreman, the court determined that the alternate had been allowed to take part in the jury's deliberations, but had not been allowed to vote on the verdict. A written polling of the jury revealed a final vote of ten to two.

The defendant's request for a mistrial was denied, as was her subsequent motion for a new trial. The defendant's application to the court of appeal was likewise denied on the basis that the jury verdict conformed to the requirements of La. Const. art. I, § 17 and La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 782, and because the defendant had failed to make a sufficient showing of prejudice arising out of the alternate juror's participation in deliberations. We granted certiorari. 568 So.2d 1047.

The alternate juror's participation in jury deliberations (as opposed to the alternate juror's mere presence in the jury room) constituted an extraneous influence on the jury. Evidence of this participation established a prima facie case of prejudice to the defendant. Cf. State v. Duplissey, 550 So.2d 590 (La.1989).

The conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

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

Related

State of Louisiana v. Kenmiccael Dano Ray
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2025
State of Louisiana v. Jimmy O'Neal Lewis
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2022
State v. Record
266 So. 3d 592 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2019)
State of Louisiana v. Prince Record
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2019
State v. Compton
66 So. 3d 619 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2011)
State of Louisiana v. Draymond Paul Compton
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2011
State v. Anderson
2 So. 3d 622 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)
State v. Clark
732 So. 2d 138 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1999)
State v. Barber
708 So. 2d 1054 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1998)
State v. Horne
679 So. 2d 953 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996)
State v. Mouton
672 So. 2d 192 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996)
State v. Searile
643 So. 2d 455 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1994)
Gulf American Industries v. Airco Indus. Gases
573 So. 2d 481 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
573 So. 2d 481, 1991 WL 9757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-howard-la-1991.