State v. Bradley

Citations

• 120 La. 248
• 45 So. 120
• 1907 La. LEXIS 638

Syllabus

<p>1. Homicide — Inconsistent Defenses.</p> <p>Appellant, indicted for murder, was convicted, and has appealed. He defended on the ground of self-defense and insanity. The two defenses are not necessarily inconsistent.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Eor cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 624-628.]</p> <p>2. Jury — Venire—Motion to Quash.</p> <p>The motion to quash filed in this case was not under section 15 of Act No. 135, p. 223, of 1898, made too late. The trial had not been entered into.</p> <p>3. Same — Jury Commissionebs — Term of Office — Oath.</p> <p>The jury commissioners appointed by a district judge do not cease to be such upon the election of a new judge. Once appointed and qualified, they continue to hold their office by affirmative action of the judge until they are displaced. The district clerk, who is ex officio a jury commissioner, is not required under the law to take in addition to his oath as clerk a special oath as jury commissioner.</p> <p>4. Same — 'Venire.</p> <p>The complaint urged against the venire from which was drawn the jury to try this case is not well grounded under section 15 of Act 135, p. 223, of 1898.</p> <p>5. Homicide — Evidence.</p> <p>The defense, claiming that accused was insane at the time he committed the homicide he was charged with, offered testimony to show that threats had been made against him by.the deceased, who was known by him to be a violent and dangerous man, and that these threats had been communicated to the accused. The testimony was not allowed to be submitted to the jury. Under the condition of the evidence already before the jury as recited in the bill of exceptions taken to this ruling, the testimony should have been admitted.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig, vol. 26, Homicide, §§ 293-296, 380.]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>