State v. Brown

Citations

• 110 La. 591
• 34 So. 698
• 1903 La. LEXIS 678

Syllabus

<p>PERJURY — INDICTMENT—EVIDENCE—VERDICT — AUTREFOIS ACQUIT.</p> <p>1. The defendant was charged with having sworn feloniously, willfully, falsely, and corruptly in a civil suit in which he testified as a witness. Upon his trial on the charge he objected to testimony offered to prove that he was aware at the time that the matter to the truth of which he had sworn was false. The trial court excluded the testimony at instance of defendant on the ground that the defendant was not charged with having testified, as before stated, knowing that his testimony was false.</p> <p>The ruling of the trial court is correct. Scienter enters into the definition of perjury, and should be expressly charged. The indictment should not leave it to be implied that defendant knew that he was swearing to a false fact at the time he testified.</p> <p>2. In thus holding the court does not wish it to be inferred that the interpretation of the statute requiring that it shall be sufficient to set forth the substance of the offense charged is in any respect changed. The court only holds that there should be a proper averment to falsify the matter wherein the perjury is assigned, and setting forth specifically that the fact sworn to is false. The indictment, because it did not include an allegation of knowledge, is fatally defective.</p> <p>3. After a person has once been put on his trial before a court of competent jurisdiction upon an indictment which is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and the jury has been charged with his deliverance, he is in jeopardy.</p> <p>Here the indictment was not sufficient to sustain a conviction, and therefore defendant was not legally acquitted. The verdict does not sustain the plea of autrefois acquit.</p> <p>Provosty, J., dissenting.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>