State v. Baudoin

Citations

• 115 La. 838
• 40 So. 239
• 1906 La. LEXIS 436

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Law — Copy of Information — Service.</p> <p>The days referred to in section 992 of the Revised Statutes are not required to be “judicial days.”</p> <p>2. Same — Appeal—Harmless Error.</p> <p>Appellant cannot complain of the ruling of the court refusing a particular question to be asked, when it was afterwards asked and answered without objection.</p> <p>3. Same — Evidence—Exclusion.</p> <p>The rejection of evidence to show a possible motive in some one other than defendant to commit the crime is too remote to be assigned as reversible error, when no particular person is named or suggested.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>The court properly refused the accused to ask a witness, who had testified that she had seen the accused, the night of the commission of the crime, at her house, “whether his appearance and manner would indicate that he had just attempted to kill or murder a person.” The answer would have been a mere opinion on the part of the witness, which was irrelevant.</p> <p>5. Witness — Credibility.</p> <p>It is inadmissible, in order to attack veracity, to prove the bad character of the witness as to chastity. State v. Hobgood, 15 South. 406, 46 La. Ann. 857.</p> <p>•6. Criminal Law — Evidence—Hearsay.</p> <p>The court properly refused, as being hearsay and self-serving, to allow the accused to admit testimony to show that he had said to different parties that he would not harm the person whom he was charged with having •wounded, notwithstanding her bad treatment of him, and that he spoke of her kindly, in order to rebut testimony which had been introduced to the effect that he had threatened to kill her.</p> <p>7. Homicide — Evidence — Details of Prior</p> <p>Quarrels.</p> <p>The refusal of the court to allow the accused to enter into the details of prior brawls and quarrels between himself and the person whom he was charged with wounding was proper.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>