Nash v. New York State Department of Labor

Where an offender was improperly classified as a tier III offender under the Adam Walsh Act, notwithstanding the fact that the offender had been released from prison, the trial court acted appropriately in vacating the improper punitive Adam Walsh Act classification and substituting an appropriate civil registration requirement under Megan's Law.

<p>APPEAL from the First District Court, Parish of Caddo. Taylor, J.</p> <p>1. The two defendants, jointly indicted for murder, obtained a severance in their trials. It was in the power of the prosecuting attorney to determine in what order he would try them. Bish. on Cr. Pr., Sec. 1018.</p> <p>2. It was not error in the trial judge to refuse to instruct the sheriff to summon tales jurors from a designated portion of the parish. Act No. 94 of Acts 1873; 14 An. 461; 23 An. 148; 26 An. 46; 32 An. 1003; 34 An. 1084; 35 An. 303.</p> <p>3. The court may discharge an obnoxious or unfit juror, even after the jury has been empaneled and sworn, if no evidence has been introduced. Thompson & Merriam on J iries, Sec. 273; 34 An. 919, and cases cited; 29 An. 642; 39 An. 868.</p> <p>A large judicial discretion is given the trial judge in passing on the qualifications of jurors, and his ruling in such a matter will not be set aside by the appellate court unless the error is manifest. 34 An. 991,1195; 38 An. 480; Thompson & Merriam, Sec. 252; 98 U. S. 145.</p> <p>Persons who entertain conscientious scruples against capital punishment are incompetont jurors. 11 An. 535, 685; 30 An. 367; 34 An. 919.</p> <p>4. When a juror is discharged before any evidence is heard the remaining jurors nepd not be re-sworn, and the defendant was not entitled to his peremptory challenges over again. 39 An. 868.</p> <p>5. Jeopardy does not attach whenever a case cannot be proceeded with by reason of some physical or moral necessity arising from no fault or neglect of the State. In such case the trial may be stopped and the defendant will not be protected from being afterward tried upon the same indictment. Vol. 39 American Reports, p. 424, and cases cited; United States vs. Perez, 9 Wheaton, 579; 8 R. 506; Wharton’s Cr. PI, Sec. 447; 1 Bish. Cr. Pr., Sec. 809; 3 An. 715; 5 An. 398; 39 An. 470; 35 An. 483; 3B An. 1410; 35 An. 341; 11 An. 284.</p> <p>Jeopardy is waived by defendant asking for a new trial