State Of Louisiana VS Jimmy Allen Wright
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 0865 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JIMMY ALLEN WRIGHT On Appeal from the 16th Judicial District Court Parish of St Mary Louisiana Docket No 2007 174614 Honorable John E Conery Judge Presiding J Phil Haney District Attorney Attorneys for State of Louisiana Jeffrey J Trosclair Assistant District Attorney Franklin LA Frederick Kroenke Louisiana Appellate Project Baton Rouge LA Attorney for Defendant Appellant Jimmy Allen Wright BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ Judgment rendered October 29 2010 4 wi r PARRO J The defendant Jimmy Allen Wright was charged by grand jury indictment with first degree murder a violation of LSAR 14 He pled not guilty Prior to trial the S 30 indictment was amended to charge the defendant with second degree murder a violation of LSAR 14 The defendant pled not guilty to the amended charge S 30 1 Following a trial by jury the defendant was convicted as charged The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence The defendant now appeals urging in a single assignment of error that the trial court erred in denying his cause challenge against a prospective juror who indicated his relationship with one of the state witnesses would affect his ability s to remain fair and impartial Finding no merit in the assignment of error we affirm the s defendant conviction and sentence FACTS On September 3 2007 the lifeless body of Adam Horton was discovered inside his St Mary Parish residence He had been stabbed once in the chest A homicide investigation was launched and the defendant and Adam brother Chris Horton s became suspects In response to police questioning the defendant provided several statements in which he eventually admitted his involvement in the events immediately preceding the victim death The defendant claimed that he and Chris Horton went to s the victim residence to commit an armed robbery The defendant stated that he was s armed with a handgun which was not loaded and unbeknownst to him Chris Horton was armed with a knife According to the defendant they only planned to scare the victim Later when a struggle ensued between the victim and the defendant Chris Horton fatally stabbed the victim in the chest ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues that the court erred in denying his challenge for cause against prospective juror Louis Spitale Specifically the defendant contends that Spitale voir dire responses indicated that his personal s 2 relationship with Detective Teddy Liner of the St Mary Parish Sheriff Office would s affect his ability to be an impartial juror An accused in a criminal case is constitutionally entitled to a full and complete voir dire examination and to the exercise of peremptory challenges LSA Const art I A 17 The purpose of voir dire examination is to determine prospective jurors qualifications by testing their competency and impartiality and discovering bases for the intelligent exercise of cause and peremptory challenges State v Burton 464 So 2d 421 425 La App 1st Cir writ denied 468 So 570 La 1985 A challenge for 2d cause should be granted even when a prospective juror declares his ability to remain impartial if the juror responses as a whole reveal facts from which bias prejudice or s inability to render judgment according to law may be reasonably implied A trial court is accorded great discretion in determining whether to seat or reject a juror for cause and such rulings will not be disturbed unless a review of the voir dire as a whole indicates an abuse of that discretion State v Martin 558 So 654 658 La App 2d 1st Cir writ denied 564 So 318 La 1990 2d A defendant must object at the time of the ruling on the refusal to sustain a challenge for cause of a prospective juror See LSAC art 800 Prejudice is P Cr A presumed when a challenge for cause is erroneously denied by a trial court and the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges To prove there has been reversible error warranting reversal of the conviction the defendant need only show 1 the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause and 2 the use of all his peremptory challenges State v Robertson 922660 La 1 630 So 1278 1280 81 It 94 14 2d is undisputed that defense counsel exhausted all of his peremptory challenges in this case Therefore we need only determine the issue of whether the trial judge erred in denying the defendant cause challenge regarding prospective juror Spitale s The grounds upon which a challenge for cause can be made are set forth in LSA P Cr C art 797 which provides The state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that 1 The juror lacks a qualification required by law 3 2 The juror is not impartial whatever the cause of his partiality An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror if he declares and the court is satisfied that he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence 3 The relationship whether by blood marriage employment friendship or enmity between the juror and the defendant the person injured by the offense the district attorney or defense counsel is such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict 4 The juror will not accept the law as given to him by the court or 5 The juror served on the grand jury that found the indictment or on a petit jury that once tried the defendant for the same or any other offense During the examination of the second panel of prospective jurors Spitale disclosed that he was acquainted with Detective Liner a state witness a four s bout or five years ago when we used to have a drugstore in Morgan City We used to supply the inmates in Morgan City with their medications and all Thereafter the court asked Spitale if his knowledge and friendship with Detective Liner would influence his verdict or judgment in any way Spitale replied as long as it is not a he said something as opposed to somebody else I would tend to go with Teddy Liner or Scott or somebody word over s another person word But other than that it would not affect my s judgment It depends on what role they play in the case Later the prosecutor revisited the issue of whether Spitale relationship with Detective s Liner would affect his ability to serve as a juror He asked w regards to Detective ith Liner could you judge his credibility like anyone else and all of the evidence surrounding him and render a verdict based upon the entirety of the case reiterated a long as it wasn like a saidshe said scenario yes I could s t he The trial court then addressed all of the prospective jurors and explained If I may There is more to judging credibility and fact finding than just a determination of who you think is telling the truth and who you think might be fabricating There is a lot more to it than that You have to analyze what you think under the circumstances a reasonable person could and would have seen and remembered Different people have different perceptions about what happened It doesn mean when one t says one thing and the other says another that one of them has to be lying So that is one of your jobs as a juror is to see what they could see hear and remember and what motive they may have one way or the other what they have to gain or loose sic by their testimony what their la Spitale age is what their psych abilities are what the lighting was like There is a lot of different factors that come into play when judging the facts and finding facts So you are not just asked to say Well he is telling the truth and he is lying You are asked to analyze all of the evidence Does any of the evidence given by other witnesses or documents back up what somebody is saying Or knock down what somebody is saying Corroboration or contradiction So just like you would in the affairs of your everyday life when you are listening to people tell you a story of what they saw or what they claim they saw You use your good judgment and common sense and find the facts from all of the evidence in the case not just necessarily the testimony of one person or one witness So therefore in your situations where Mr Liner or Mr whatever that deputy you know name is he could be You could say I believe s he is a truthful person but still not accept his testimony because it is contradicted by other more reliable evidence It doesn mean he is lying t It doesn mean somebody else is lying You see what I am talking about t The court then specifically asked Spitale if he could judge the credibility and believability of all of the witnesses notwithstanding his relationship with Detective Liner He responded affirmatively The issue regarding Spitale relationship with Detective Liner was raised again s during questioning by defense counsel The following exchange occurred DEFENSE COUNSEL Okay And you said if it was a kind of he saidshe said you would kind of go with Mr Liner SPITALE Look my feelings towards Mr Liner is I think he is a nice person I wouldn you know As long as the evidence followed the t testimony no problem If it came down to one person word against his s I don know I have to listen t d DEFENSE COUNSEL I don want to put words in your mouth t but you would say because of these feelings that you have for Mr Liner that you would you would place a burden on the Defense to show that what he is saying is not true SPITALE I guess kind of In a certain sense possibly so If the shows otherwise like what Judge Conery said earlier I would evidence have to go with the evidence then and not my knowledge of Mr Liner versus some other person Finally the prosecutor asked Mr Spitale so you indicated you could base your decision on the evidence The prospective juror responded Yes At the conclusion of the examination of the panel counsel for the defendant urged a cause challenge against Spitale and noted Judge you are not aware of it but Mr Liner is pretty crucial to the case He took the statements from my client and he is a major witness for the 5 State He pretty much at the end of my question said that he would be placing the burden on me to overcome his feelings for Mr Liner In response the prosecutor noted that prospective juror Spitale ultimately stated that he would follow the evidence in deciding the case The following exchange then took place between the court and defense counsel BY THE COURT Well it is a close question on Mr Spitale I don think I grant the t ll cause challenge I think he understands that Mr Liner role is going to s be limited basically from what you indicated to the playing of tapes I t don know that Mr Liner has anything that he needs to say that is going to be contradicted or is even the subject of contradiction by anyone BY DEFENSE COUNSEL He does the questioning on the tape BY THE COURT I know but is there any contradiction about what was said on the tape Is anybody going to contradict that which was said BY DEFENSE COUNSEL Well the questioning was done in such a way that it supports the s State theory of the case Okay And by the mere fact that we are pleading not guilty is a contradiction of the State theory of the case s BY THE COURT I understand Okay So I deny the cause challenge ll Defense counsel objected to the trial court ruling and used a peremptory challenge to s exclude Spitale Although Spitale initially admitted that he would tend to give more weight to Detective Liner testimony in the event of a hesaidshe said conflict we find the voir s dire transcript when considered in its entirety establishes that Spitale was capable of deciding the case in a fair and impartial manner based upon the law and the evidence A prospective juror seemingly prejudicial response is not grounds for an automatic s challenge for cause and a trial judge refusal to excuse him on the grounds of s impartiality is not an abuse of discretion if after further questioning the potential juror demonstrates a willingness and ability to decide the case impartially according to the law and evidence See State v Lee 559 So 1310 1318 La 1990 cert denied 2d 499 U 954 111 S 1431 113 L 482 1991 State v Copeland 530 So S Ct 2d Ed 2d 526 534 La 1988 cert denied 489 U 1091 109 S 1558 103 L 860 S Ct 2d Ed 1989 In State v Kang 022812 La 10 859 So 649 654 the defendant 03 21 2d argued that the response of probably by Mr Whitcomb a prospective juror indicated his unacceptable hesitancy to find the defendant not guilty if the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt The fifth circuit had reversed the trial court refusal s to strike Mr Whitcomb for cause finding that Mr Whitcomb never unequivocally indicated he could disregard his initial bias toward police officers The supreme court reversed the fifth circuit and stated These conclusions are not supported by the record and demonstrate the court of appeal failure to give proper deference to the trial court s s findings Mr Whitcomb responses during voir dire should be viewed as s a whole not on a piecemeal basis Though some of Mr Whitcomb s remarks or references could be viewed as questionable standing alone and out of context when the voir dire is properly reviewed as a whole there is no evidence of Mr Whitcomb partiality Citation omitted s Kang 859 So at 655 2d The linedrawing in many cases is difficult Accordingly the trial judge must determine the challenge on the basis of the entire voir dire and on the judge personal s observations of the potential jurors during the questioning Moreover the reviewing court should accord great deference to the trial judge determination and should not s attempt to reconstruct the voir dire by a microscopic dissection of the transcript in search of magic words or phrases that automatically signify the jurors qualifications or disqualifications See State v Miller 990192 La 9 776 So 396 40506 00 6 2d cert denied 531 U 1194 121 S 1196 149 L 111 2001 S Ct 2d Ed In the instant case although Spitale initially indicated that he would likely give more weight to Detective Liner after the trial court very thorough explanation of what s goes into making credibility determinations Spitale indicated that he would follow the law and the evidence in deciding the case Despite the defendant assertion that s s Spitale responses showed that he could not serve as a fair and impartial juror the trial See State v Kang 01 1262 La App 5th Or 10 831 Sold 409 415 02 29 7 court was in the best position to determine whether Spitale could discharge his duties as a juror Upon reviewing the voir dire in its entirety we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying defense counsel cause challenge as to this prospective s juror This assignment of error is without merit CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
