Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

573 So. 2d 481

Docket No. 90-KK-1747.

State v. Howard

STATE of Louisiana v. Shelia HOWARD.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided January 25, 1991.

Rehearing Denied February 28, 1991.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1991-01-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“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.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Record, 66 So. 3d 619 - State v. Compton

Relies on 550 So. 2d 590 - State v. Duplissey · 568 So. 2d 1047 - Moore v. Howard Bros. Discount Stores, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-01-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently February 2019

1 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

120199120002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James P. Manasseh, Baton Rouge, for Shelia Howard, defendant-applicant.

¶2William Guste, Atty. Gen., Cheney Joseph, Dist. Atty., Robert Piedrahita, Asst. Dist. Atty., Baton Rouge, Gwendolyn Brown, Bossier City, for State of La., plaintiff-respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The 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.

¶5The 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.

¶6The 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).

¶7The conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

/573/so2d/481 · .json · Public domain