Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
63-90011 Généré par l'IA

Jury Designation Error Appeal in Theft Conviction

Numéro de cause 63-90011
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The appeal challenged a fifteen-year conviction for aggravated theft and attempted aggravated theft, based on an alleged defect in the formation of the trial jury, specifically arguing that the designation of the third alternate juror was unclear due to a non-approved correction (a number written over another) on the record. The Court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that despite the visible correction indicating the third alternate juror was called to complete the minimum panel of twenty-three jurors, the overall procedural record confirmed that the second and fourth alternates were excused, and the sixth did not participate, thereby establishing with sufficient certainty that the third alternate was the correct individual designated to be included in the draw, and thus the entire criminal procedure was regular.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

ARTICLE 593 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 289 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 107 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 7 DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810; Jury Designation Error Appeal in Theft Conviction: The Court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that despite the visible correction indicating the third alternate juror was called to complete the minimum panel of twenty-three jurors, the overall procedural record confirmed that the second and fourth alternates were excused, and the sixth did not participate, thereby establishing with sufficient certainty that the third alternate was the correct individual designated to be included in the draw, and thus the entire criminal procedure was regular.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
tentative de vol casier judiciaire erreur sur la personne vice de procédure vol qualifié fraude dans la saisie

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE 593 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE
This provision is cited within the scope of the sole ground for appeal concerning procedural regularity, although the appeal was ultimately rejected.
ARTICLE 289 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE
This provision is cited within the scope of the sole ground for appeal concerning procedural regularity, although the appeal was ultimately rejected.
ARTICLE 107 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE
This provision is cited within the scope of the sole ground for appeal concerning procedural regularity, although the appeal was ultimately rejected.
ARTICLE 7 DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810
This provision is cited within the scope of the sole ground for appeal concerning the application of penalties to established facts, although the appeal was ultimately rejected.
Généré par l'IA
63-91495
Appeal Regarding Jury Selection Irregularity in Theft Convictions
89-81814
State v. Defendant: Appeal of Aggravated Theft Sentence Regarding Jury Irregularities
74-92481
Appellant v. State: Jury Selection Procedural Error
83-92303
Aggravated Theft Sentencing Appeal: Jury Selection and Factual Question Complexity
76-93510
Appeal Against Theft Conviction Regarding Procedural Errors

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE 593 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE

This provision is cited within the scope of the sole ground for appeal concerning procedural regularity, although the appeal was ultimately rejected.

ARTICLE 289 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE

This provision is cited within the scope of the sole ground for appeal concerning procedural regularity, although the appeal was ultimately rejected.

ARTICLE 107 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE

This provision is cited within the scope of the sole ground for appeal concerning procedural regularity, although the appeal was ultimately rejected.

ARTICLE 7 DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810

This provision is cited within the scope of the sole ground for appeal concerning the application of penalties to established facts, although the appeal was ultimately rejected.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

REJET DU POURVOI DE X... (ALBERT), CONTRE UN ARRET DE LA COUR D'ASSISES DE LA SEINE, EN DATE DU 5 NOVEMBRE 1963, QUI L'A CONDAMNE A QUINZE ANS DE RECLUSION CRIMINELLE POUR VOL QUALIFIE ET TENTATIVE DE VOL QUALIFIE LA COUR, VU LE MEMOIRE PRODUIT;

SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE DE CASSATION PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DES ARTICLES 107, 289 ET 593 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE ET DE L'ARTICLE 7 DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810, MANQUE DE BASE LEGALE, "EN CE QUE, PAR SUITE D'UNE SURCHARGE NON APPROUVEE, QUI EST DONC NON AVENUE, IL N'EST PAS ETABLI QUE LE TROISIEME JURE SUPPLEMENTAIRE AIT ETE APPELE A COMPLETER LE NOMBRE MINIMUM DE VINGT-TROIS JURES, ALORS QU'IL AVAIT SEUL VOCATION LEGALE POUR PARTICIPER AU TIRAGE AU SORT";

ATTENDU QUE LE PROCES-VERBAL DES OPERATIONS DE FORMATION DU JURY DE JUGEMENT ENONCE QUE, PAR SUITE DES ABSENCES CONSTATEES ET DES EXCUSES ADMISES, LES JURES TITULAIRES N'ETAIENT PRESENTS QU'AU NOMBRE DE VINGT;

QUE LE PRESIDENT A MIS DANS L'URNE LES NOMS DES "1ER, 3E ET 5E" JURES SUPPLEANTS AFIN DE PARVENIR AU MINIMUM LEGAL DE VINGT-TROIS JURES;

ATTENDU QUE SI, A LA VERITE, LE CHIFFRE "3" SUSVISE PARAIT AVOIR ETE TRACE EN SURCHARGE SUR LE CHIFFRE "2", CETTE CIRCONSTANCE NE CREE AUCUNE INCERTITUDE SUR LE FAIT QUE C'EST BIEN LE TROISIEME JURE SUPPLEANT QUI EST AINSI DESIGNE;

QU'EN EFFET LE PROCES-VERBAL AJOUTE QUE LE DEUXIEME ET LE QUATRIEME JURES SUPPLEANTS AVAIENT ETE REGULIEREMENT EXCUSES PAR LA COUR ET QUE LE SIXIEME JURE SUPPLEANT N'A PAS PRIS PART AU TIRAGE;

D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE MOYEN NE SAURAIT ETRE ACCUEILLI;

ET ATTENDU QUE LA PROCEDURE EST REGULIERE ET QUE LA PEINE A ETE LEGALEMENT APPLIQUEE AUX FAITS DECLARES CONSTANTS PAR LA COUR ET LE JURY;

REJETTE LE POURVOI PRESIDENT : M ZAMBEAUX - RAPPORTEUR : M LEGRIS - AVOCAT GENERAL : M RELIQUET - AVOCAT : M MAYER