Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

103 So. 3d 705

State v. Hamilton

Decided November 7, 2012

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 2013

3 state decisions

Relies on Fields v. Bleiman · State v. Campbell · State v. Pinion

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2012-11-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

AMY, J.,

¶1dissenting.

¶2hi respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination to vacate the defendant’s convictions and sentences. Certainly, it is the trial court’s duty to see that the court reporter makes a true, complete and accurate record of the trial. State v. Pinion, 06-2346 (La.10/26/07), 968 So.2d 131. However, in this case, the voir dire transcript contained within the record permits a review of the appropriateness of the trial court’s denials of the defendant’s challenges for cause. State v. Campbell 06-0286 (La.5/21/08), 983 So.2d 810, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1040, 129 S.Ct. 607, 172 L.Ed.2d 471 (2008). In this light, and given that the defendant’s contention that the cited omissions from the record would reveal a possible pattern of disparate treatment is only speculative in nature, I find that a reversal is not required.

¶3For this reason, I respectfully dissent.

/103/so3d/705 · .json · Public domain