You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State v. Touissant

Citations: 750 So. 2d 980; 1999 La. LEXIS 3307Docket: No. 99-K-1789

Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana; November 23, 1999; Louisiana; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Justice Lemmon dissents from the denial of the application, emphasizing the trial judge's broad discretion in evaluating race-neutral reasons provided by the prosecutor during peremptory challenges. In this case, the prosecutor's reasons were rejected without further action taken. Consequently, the trial judge was obligated to either reinstate the juror or dismiss the entire panel and select a new jury from a different venire. The failure to take either of these actions necessitates a reversal of the conviction, referencing Batson v. Kentucky, which outlines these procedural requirements.

Legal Issues Addressed

Judicial Discretion in Evaluating Peremptory Challenges

Application: This case discusses the trial judge's discretion to assess race-neutral reasons given by the prosecutor for peremptory challenges.

Reasoning: Justice Lemmon dissents from the denial of the application, emphasizing the trial judge's broad discretion in evaluating race-neutral reasons provided by the prosecutor during peremptory challenges.

Procedural Requirements Following Rejection of Prosecutor's Reasons

Application: Upon rejection of the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons, the trial judge is required to either reinstate the juror or dismiss the panel and select a new jury.

Reasoning: In this case, the prosecutor's reasons were rejected without further action taken. Consequently, the trial judge was obligated to either reinstate the juror or dismiss the entire panel and select a new jury from a different venire.

Reversal of Conviction Due to Procedural Noncompliance

Application: The failure to comply with procedural requirements necessitates reversing the conviction, as outlined in Batson v. Kentucky.

Reasoning: The failure to take either of these actions necessitates a reversal of the conviction, referencing Batson v. Kentucky, which outlines these procedural requirements.