- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
STATE v. LaGARDE
Factual and Procedural Background
Defendant James LaGarde, Jr. was tried and convicted of theft of a leather coat valued at over $100.00 (R.S. 14:67) and sentenced to two years at hard labor. On appeal he asserted one bill of exceptions challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for a change of venue. The motion relied on four Houma Daily Courier news articles dated February 15, 1973; June 24, 1973; May 28, 1974; and May 29, 1974. The first two articles (more than a year before trial) reported defendant's involvement in an aggravated battery incident and his arrest in connection with two armed robbery-murder cases. The May 28, 1974 article reported the start of trial on one armed robbery-murder charge, noted a "no true bill" on the other, and mentioned defendant's state penitentiary and parish prison record; the May 29, 1974 article reported a mistrial in the armed robbery trial that resulted from the May 28 article. Trial on the theft charge occurred September 9, 1974.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a change of venue based on pretrial publicity.
- Whether the publicity rendered it impossible to obtain a fair and impartial trial in the parish as required by C.Cr.P. 622.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- Pretrial publicity in four newspaper articles prejudiced the community and prevented a fair and impartial trial, warranting a change of venue.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the State's opposing arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Flood, 301 So.2d 657 (La. 1974) | Support for application of C.Cr.P. 622 regarding change of venue and voir dire assessment | Cited as authority in concluding voir dire showed jurors free of prejudicial bias. |
| State v. Leichman, 286 So.2d 649 (La. 1973) | Support for application of C.Cr.P. 622 regarding change of venue and voir dire assessment | Cited as authority in concluding voir dire showed jurors free of prejudicial bias. |
| State v. Richmond, 284 So.2d 317 (La. 1973) | Support for application of C.Cr.P. 622 regarding change of venue and voir dire assessment | Cited as authority in concluding voir dire showed jurors free of prejudicial bias. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reviewed the four articles and other record evidence and applied C.Cr.P. 622, which conditions a change of venue on proof that prejudice in the public mind (or undue influence or other reasons) makes a fair and impartial trial unobtainable and directs consideration of whether such prejudice would affect voir dire answers or witness testimony. The court found the earlier articles were more than a year old and that the May 1974 articles' content (including reference to prior arrests, a mistrial, and prior records) did not satisfy the defendant's burden to show he could not obtain a fair trial. The court relied on the voir dire record, concluding jurors were free of prejudice that would prevent a fair trial, and cited State v. Flood, State v. Leichman, and State v. Richmond in support of its assessment.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The trial court's denial of the motion for change of venue was affirmed; the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Implications: The direct effect is affirmance of defendant's conviction and two-year hard labor sentence. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or announce a new rule beyond applying C.Cr.P. 622 and relevant precedent to the facts of this case.
DIXON, Justice.
Defendant was tried and convicted of having stolen a leather coat valued at over $100.00. R.S. 14:67. He was sentenced to serve two years at hard labor. On appeal he urges one bill of exceptions based upon the trial court's denial of his motion for a change of venue. His motion was based upon four news articles which appeared in the Houma Daily Courier. The articles appeared on the following dates: February 15, 1973, June 24, 1973, May 28, 1974 and May 29, 1974; trial occurred on September 9, 1974. The first two articles were written over a year prior to the trial and merely stated that the defendant was involved in an aggravated battery incident (February 14, 1973) and had been arrested in connection with two armed robbery-murder cases (June 24, 1973.) The May 28, 1974 article stated that the trial for one of the armed robbery-murder charges was to begin that day. It further mentioned that the grand jury had returned a no true bill with regard to the other armed robbery-murder case and that the defendant had a state penitentiary and parish prison record. As a result of this article a mistrial was declared in the armed robbery trial; and it was this mistrial which was the subject of the May 29, 1974 article.
From a review of the above mentioned articles and the other evidence in the record, we conclude that the defendant failed to satisfy his burden of proof as required by C.Cr.P. 622, which provides:
"A change of venue shall be granted when the applicant proves that by reason of prejudice existing in the public mind or because of undue influence, or that for any other reason, a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained in the parish where the prosecution is pending.
"In deciding whether to grant a change of venue the court shall consider whether the prejudice, the influence, or the other reasons are such that they will affect the answers of jurors on the voir dire examination or the testimony of witnesses at the trial."
Defendant did not establish that he could not obtain a fair trial in the parish where the prosecution was pending. In fact, the voir dire examination clearly showed that the jurors were free of any prejudice that would prevent defendant from receiving a fair and impartial trial. State v. Flood, 301 So.2d 657 (La. 1974); State v. Leichman, 286 So.2d 649 (La. 1973); State v. Richmond, 284 So.2d 317 (La. 1973). The trial court's ruling was correct.
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Alert