State v. Allen
STATE of Louisiana v. Russell J. ALLEN
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
liPER CURIAM * .
This court granted certiorari to review the issue of the trial court’s requiring the parties to alternate in their exercise of peremptory challenges. 1 646 So.2d 390 . Upon reviewing the record, the court has determined that defendant did not object to the peremptory challenge procedure. Accordingly, the court recalls the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
Judge Charles R. Lindsay, Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, has been assigned as Justice Pro Tempore, in place of Justice James L. Dennis.
Victory, J., not on panel.
. See La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 788, which requires that a prospective juror be tendered first to the state unless the court rules provide for a system of simultaneous exercise of challenges.
Concurrence
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
| iLEMMON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in denying certiorari. However, the court of appeal erred in ruling that the officer only needed “reasonable suspicion” to tackle defendant and pin him to the ground. This conduct by the officer, which the court of appeal recognized as constituting a seizure of defendant, was only valid if based on probable cause to seize and search defendant.
Nevertheless, in my view there was probable cause to seize defendant. After the car in which he was a passenger had been properly stopped for a traffic violation in a high crime area, defendant bolted from the car, ran through a ditch partially filled with water, and headed toward a wooded area while holding his hands in his groin area. Under the totality of the circumstances, there was a “fair probability” that a seizure and search of defendant would yield contraband or evidence of a crime, and the officer therefore had probable cause to believe that defendant was committing or had committed a crime. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 238 and 246, 108 S.Ct. 2317 , 2332 and 2336, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.