State v. Williams, 524 So. 2d 746 (La. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Williams, 524 So. 2d 746 (La. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1993 · …an obvious advantage of a prompt ruling on batson objections is that memories are fresh and a better record can be made of such relevant factors as the race and the demeanor of the jurors, the neutral reasons for challenging the jurors.... ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1993 · …at some time before the completion of the jury panel, ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1993 · …louisiana jurisprudence is clear that ⚠ not in text
54 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Jackson
Kan. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
See Bell v. State, 535 So. 2d 210, 212 (Ala. 1988) (before jury sworn); People v. Cunningham, 61 Cal. 4th 609, 662 , 189 Cal. Rptr. 3d 737 , 352 P.3d 318 (2015) (before jury sworn); State v. Robinson, 237 Conn. 238, 250 , 676 A.2d 384 (1996) (before jury sworn); Idaho v. Ish, 166 Idaho 492, 501 , 461 P.3d 774 (2020) (before jury sworn and prospective jurors dismissed); Washington v. Commonwealth, 34 S.W.3d 376, 378 (Ky. 2000) (except for good cause, before jury sworn and jury pool dismissed); State v. Williams, 524 So. 2d 746, 746 (La. 1988) (before entire jury panel sworn); State v. Aubrey, 6…
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Cheatteam
La. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
State v. Williams, 524 So.2d 746, 746 (La. 1988) (per curiam) (relying on Batson ). [9] Mr. Netterville lodged the challenges on behalf of codefendant Mr. Jones.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Stracener
La. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
State v. Williams, 524 So.2d 746, 747 (ftnt. 4) (La. 1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Bennett
La. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
State v. Williams, 524 So.2d 746, 747 (ftnt. 4) (1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Jackson
La. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
Id. at 746-47 (footnote omitted).
cited Cited "see" State v. Young
La. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 524 So.2d 746 (La. 1988).
cited Cited "see" State v. Harvey
La. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 524 So.2d 746 (La.1988).
cited Cited "see" State v. Otis
La. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 524 So.2d 746 (La.1988).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Collier
La. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 524 So.2d 746 (La.1988). [5] If the trial judge had not found there was a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, there was no necessity to call for explanation of the challenges.
cited Cited "see" State v. Williams
La. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams, 516 So.2d 150 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1987), writ granted in part, 524 So.2d 746 (La.1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Darrell L. WILLIAMS.
88-K-0132.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 6, 1988.
524 So. 2d 746
Per Curiam.
Cited by 44 opinions  |  Published

John Mamoulides, Dist. Atty., Dorothy A. Pendergast, Terry M. Boudreaux, Asst. Dist. Attys. for plaintiff-applicant.

Martha E. Sassone, Indigent Defender Board, Gretna, for defendant-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Granted in part. The trial court and court of appeal 516 So.2d 150 erred in holding that the proper time for the trial judge to rule on objections that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges of prospective jurors solely on account of race is after the trial in a post-conviction proceeding. At that point in time (post-conviction), the trial judge is powerless to correct the error, and the only available relief is the granting of a new trial.

In order to preserve the complaint that the prosecutor's use of a peremptory exception was based on race, the defense must make an objection before the entire jury panel is sworn. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The Court in Batson left open the method and the time for ruling on such objections, but it is clear from the suggestions in the opinion and from principles of judicial efficiency that the ruling must be made at a time when the trial judge can correct the error of which the objections complain.[1] The Batson decision suggested that the trial judge, if the objections are well founded, can correct the error either by denying the peremptory challenge and reinstating the challenged jurors or by dismissing the venire and selecting a new jury.[2] This suggestion indicates that the ruling on the objections must be made at some time before the completion of the jury panel.[3] Such a procedure avoids a reversal of the conviction, which is the only[*747] relief available if the ruling on the objections is postponed until post-conviction proceedings.[4]

Because of the error in the present case in deferring a ruling on the objections, the case must be remanded to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing and to rule on the objections before the court of appeal renders a final decision on the appeal from the conviction.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is amended to affirm the conviction conditionally. The case is remanded to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on defendant's objections to the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges. Otherwise, the application is denied.

1 In footnote 24 the Court stated:

"In light of the variety of jury selection practices followed in our state and federal trial courts, we make no attempt to instruct these courts how best to implement our holding today. For the same reason, we express no view on whether it is more appropriate in a particular case, upon a finding of discrimination against black jurors, for the trial court to discharge the venire and select a new jury from a panel not previously associated with the case, or to disallow the discriminatory challenges and resume selection with the improperly challenged jurors reinstated on the venire." (citations omitted)

2 When one or more objections to peremptory challenges have been made, the trial judge should conduct a hearing outside the presence of the selected jurors and the venire and then determine whether the defendant has made a prima facie showing of discriminatory purpose and, if so, whether the prosecutor has established a neutral explanation for challenging the jurors. Batson v. Kentucky, supra.
3 An obvious advantage of a prompt ruling on Batson objections is that memories are fresh and a better record can be made of such relevant factors as the race and the demeanor of the jurors, the neutral reasons for challenging the jurors, and the like.
4 The very basis of the contemporaneous objection requirement (and of the prohibition against raising unobjected to errors on appeal) is to require the objecting party to call the error to the court's attention at a time when the court can effectively correct it. The reason for the contemporaneous objection requirement is defeated when the ruling on the objection is purposefully deferred until after the trial.