Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

708 So. 2d 1054

Docket No. 97-K-2749.

State v. Barber

STATE of Louisiana v. Vincent BARBER.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided April 24, 1998.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1998-04-24

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Participation by alternates in deliberations is an extraneous influence on the jury representing a prima facie case of prejudice requiring reversal.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including State v. Lewis, 2 So. 3d 622 - State v. Anderson

“... Participation by alternates in deliberations is an extraneous influence on the jury representing a prima facie case of prejudice requiring reversal. La. C.E. art. 606(B).... Louisiana courts are “required to take evidence upon well-pleaded allegations of prejudicial juror misconduct .... ” [citations omitted] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court shall determine whether a new trial or other appropriate relief is required, reserving to the parties a right to seek review of the ruling.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 732 So. 2d 138 - State v. Clark, 47 So. 3d 1127 - State v. Ingram

Relies on 422 So. 2d 123 - State v. Graham · State v. Jasper · State v. Sanders

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-04-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2016

8 state decisions

40199820002010decided

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 →

¶1PER CURIAM.[*]

¶2GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. This case is remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether or to what extent the presence of alternate jurors in deliberations may have affected the outcome. Participation by alternates in deliberations is an extraneous influence on the jury representing a prima facie case of prejudice requiring reversal. La. C.E. art. 606(B); State v. Howard,573 So.2d 481 (La.1991); State v. Smith,367 So.2d 857 (La.1979). Louisiana courts are "required to take evidence upon well-pleaded allegations of prejudicial juror misconduct...." State v. Graham,422 So.2d 123, 131-132 (La.1982); State v. Horne,679 So.2d 953, 958 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 8/21/96), writ denied,688 So.2d 521 (La.2/21/97); State v. Sanders,539 So.2d 114, 121 (La.App. 2nd Cir.), writ denied,546 So.2d 1212 (La.1989); State v. Duncan,563 So.2d 1269, 1272 (La. App. 1st Cir.1990). See also State v. Searile,643 So.2d 455, 457-458 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 10/5/94). At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court shall determine whether a new trial or other appropriate relief is required, reserving to the parties a right to seek review of the ruling.

¶3TRAYLOR, J., would deny writ.

NOTES

¶4[*] Lemmon, J., not on panel. See Rule IV, Part II, Sec. 3.

/708/so2d/1054 · .json · Public domain