State v. JonesState v. Jones
The State chаrged the defendant, Junius Jones, with simple burglary in violation of
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 1, 2, AND 3
These three assignments of error are related to the defendant‘s claim that the jury venire from which the petit jury trying his case was selected was unconstitutionally composed. On the day of trial, January 22, 1975, the defendаnt orally moved to quash the entire jury panel “on the basis of exclusion of eighteen year olds.” The trial judge denied thе motion at that time, but reserved to the defendant the right to introduce evidence after the trial in support of his contention.
On February 5, 1975, the defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that the trial jury did not conform to the requirements оf Section 33 of Article V of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution, which provides in pertinent part:
“A citizen of the state who has reached the age of majority is eligible to serve as a juror within the parish in which he is domiciled. . . .”
The defendant subsequently filed a written motion to quash and a motion for a new trial, both of which also alleged non-compliance with
In his brief to this Court, the defendant continues to argue non-сompliance with the constitutional provision; he also contends, for the first time, that the jury commission failed to assemble a pool of jurors fairly representative of “a cross-section of the community” as required by Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (decided Jаnuary 21, 1975, one day prior to the trial in the instant case). In support of his argument to this Court, defendant relies, also for the first time, on our denial of certiorari in State v. de la Beckwith, La., 306 So.2d 310 (1975), in which the presiding judge of Section “A” of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court (not the section in which defendant Jones was tried) had sustained a motion to quash on the ground of systematic exclusion of women and of eightеen to twenty-one year olds.
Because we find no merit to the substantive issue presented by the defendant in these threе assignments of error, we pretermit a determination of whether the denial of the motion to quash is properly before this Court procedurally or whether any of the motions properly preserved for appellate reviеw the allegation of systematic exclusion of any group other than eighteen to twenty-one year olds from the jury vеnire. The defendant‘s arguments must fail because he introduced no evidence in the trial court to establish that the jury panel for the month of January, 1975, did not conform with
The defendant Jones made no showing to support his assertions in thе trial court, and he, therefore, did not carry his burden of establishing a prima facie case. His reliance on aрpeal upon a denial of certiorari in another case cannot cure his failure to carry his burden of рroof.
The assignments of error are without merit.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4
This assignment of error is based on an objection made during the multiple billing proceeding when the trial judge took judicial notice of the fact that the defendant involved was the same individual who had been convicted in his court of simрle burglary approximately two and one-half weeks previously. The defense asserts that this procedure failеd to comply with
“The certificates of the warden or other chief officer of any state prison,. . . containing thе name of the person imprisoned, the photograph, and the fingerprints of the person as they appeаr in the records of his office, a statement of the court in which a conviction was had, the date and time of sentеnce, length of time imprisoned, and date of discharge from prison or penitentiary, shall be prima facie evidence on the trial of any person for a second and subsequent offense of the imprisonment and discharge of thе person, . . . .”
The proceeding in which the trial judge took notice of defendant‘s identity resulted in the basic convictiоn for which the multiple-offender sentence was imposed.
Our decision in State v. O‘Day, 191 La. 380, 185 So. 290 (1938), remains a valid statement of the law on this issue:
“. . . The present proceeding is a part of the original prosecution against him for that crime. State v. Guidry, 169 La. 215, 124 So. 832. Our learned brother below had the right to take judicial cognizance of any prior proceeding which was a part of the same case he had previously tried. The filing of the information was solely and only for the purpose of having the court impose a sentence upon the accused, aсcording to the laws of this State, as a second or third offender. Therefore, proof that he was the prisoner who had been sentenced by the judge under the previous conviction by the jury was not necessary.”
Moreover, this Court reсently held that the procedures set forth in
The assignment of error is without merit.
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.