State v. Bolden

Citations

• 107 La. 116

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. In enacting Statute 44 of 1890, it must be presumed that the Legislature did not intend that the law should be construed without reference to established principles, and that in making it a crime to shoot a person with intent to kill it was intended to cut oil the right of self-defense or any other reasonable or lawful use of firearms.</p> <p>2. Shooting in self-defense is actuated and controlled by the desire to protect one’s life, and the desire to take life is not controlling and exclusive, it cannot be said to fall within the terms which denounce the act of shooting with intent to kill. In that view, the statute is not unreasonable nor absurd. United States vs. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482.</p> <p>3. Even if the statute be unreasonable, to decree it void its provisions must be found in conflict with the Constitution. L. K. A., Vol. 50, p. 56.</p> <p>4. The title of an act may assist in removing ambiguities when the intent is not plain. The title, as well as the statute, is adopted by the Legislature and shows the object of the statute. Fisher vs. Blight, 2 Cranch. 586; Burgett vs. Burgett, Vols. 1 and 2, p. 221 of the Ohio Reports.</p> <p>5. A title which serves to indicate the object of a statute cannot be held to have misled the Legislature when it was adopted.</p> <p>6. “We, the jury, find the accused guilty of shooting with intent to kill,” is a legal verdict under Statute 44 of 1890. State vs. Broussard, 106 La. (Not yet reported).</p>