State v. Martinez-Sanchez

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Martinez-Sanchez

554 So. 2d 1236, 1990 La. LEXIS 92, 1990 WL 2393

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 12, 1990

DocketNo. 89-K-2341

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 554 So. 2d 1236 (State v. Martinez-Sanchez) 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. Martinez-Sanchez, 554 So. 2d 1236, 1990 La. LEXIS 92, 1990 WL 2393 (La. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Granted. Reversed and remanded. The judgment of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal is reversed. 550 So.2d 232. Because the first prospective juror had not been called for voir dire examination at the time the trial judge made his inadvertent remarks, the mandatory provisions of La.C. Cr.P. art. 770(2) did not require a mistrial. The remarks were otherwise not so prejudicial that they deprived the defendants of a fair trial. La.C.Cr.P. art. 771; see, State v. Alexander, 351 So.2d 505 (La.1977). This case is therefore remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of the remaining assignments of error, particularly with regard to the trial court’s instructions to the jurors that in determining the weight of the cocaine seized they were to “include the weight of the total compound.” See, State v. Newton, 545 So.2d 530 (La.1989); see also, Acts 1989, No. 369.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the application and bring the case up. DENNIS, J., would deny the application. LEMMON, J., dissents from the order.

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

Granted. Reversed and remanded. The judgment of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal is reversed. 550 So.2d 232. Because the first prospective juror had not been called for voir dire examination at the time the trial judge made his inadvertent remarks, the mandatory provisions of La.C. Cr.P. art. 770(2) did not require a mistrial. The remarks were otherwise not so prejudicial that they deprived the defendants of a fair trial. La.C.Cr.P. art. 771; see, State v. Alexander, 351 So.2d 505 (La.1977). This case is therefore remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of the remaining assignments of error, particularly with regard to the trial court’s instructions to the jurors that in determining the weight of the cocaine seized they were to “include the weight of the total compound.” See, State v. Newton, 545 So.2d 530 (La.1989); see also, Acts 1989, No. 369.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the application and bring the case up. DENNIS, J., would deny the application. LEMMON, J., dissents from the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 So. 2d 1236, 1990 La. LEXIS 92, 1990 WL 2393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-martinez-sanchez-la-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack