State v. GoodbierState v. Goodbier
On February 15, 1977, Paul Goodbier was charged by bill of information with the attempted aggravated rape of a female, a violation of
Shortly after sentencing, on March 10, 1978, the defendant filed a motion for appeal and a motion to act as his own attorney in the appellate proceedings. The trial judge granted both of these motions but appointed an attorney to assist and advise the defendant in the exercise of his appellate rights.1 Appointed counsel prepared three assignments of error, аnd defendant himself prepared seventeen assignments of error for review by this Court. We find
In his first assignmеnt of error defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial on the ground thаt material portions of the trial court proceedings were not recorded. The state concedes that none of the voir dire exаmination of prospective jurors in this case was recorded.
No рerson may be imprisoned in this state without the right of judicial review based on a complete record of all evidence upon which the judgment is based.
However, affidavits of record by the court reporter and the defendant‘s trial counsel state that no objections wеre made by the defense during the voir dire. Absent a contemporaneоus objection this Court can review only errors discoverable by a merе inspection of the pleadings and proceedings.
Moreover, the minutеs kept during the trial, as as well as the affidavits, reveal that the defendant‘s рeremptory challenges were not exhausted. Therefore, the defendant could not complain of a refusal by the trial court to sustain а challenge for cause even if such a ruling had been made.
For purрoses of this review we have accepted as true the sworn affidavits of the court reporter and defendant‘s trial counsel which were filed into the record of this case. Finding on the basis of these documents that no error was preserved for our review which necessitates an inspection of the voir dire proceedings, we conclude that the failurе to record that portion of the trial, for whatever reason, constituted only harmless error. See, State v. Kemp, 359 So.2d 978 (La.1978); State v. Francis, 345 So.2d 1120 (La.1977). Defendant may, of course, by application for writ of habeas corpus, challenge the veracity of the affidavits.
The remaining assignments of error present insubstantial questions which arе settled under prior jurisprudence of this Court.
The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.