State v. Callian
Citations
- 109 La. 346
- 33 So. 363
- 1903 La. LEXIS 389
Syllabus
<p>CRIMINAL LAW — INSTRUCTIONS—SEPARATION OF JURY — CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT — BILL OF EXCEPTIONS — STATEMENT OF JUDGE — RECORD—NEW TRIAL.</p> <p>1. A request, in a criminal case, that the jury be charged that, “Where there is a conflict in the testimony, the preponderance oC testimony governs, when the witnesses are equally credible and unimpeached,” is properly refused; more particularly where it appears that the jury have already been charged that they are the exclusive judges of the law and the facts, and have been instructed upon the subject of “reasonable doubt.”</p> <p>2. It is not error to permit a juror, during a trial, under an indictment for murder, to separate himself from the jury for the purpose of going, in the custody of a deputy sheriff, into a closet, the door of which opens into the courtroom, and within which there is no other person.'</p> <p>3. A defendant in a criminal prosecution, who becomes a witness in his own behalf, may be asked on cross-examination, with a view of testing his credibility, how many times he has been before the court. But, if this were not so, nevertheless, if in answer to such a question he says, in substance, that he has never been before the court, and the answer remains undisputed, he has sustained no injury by the question.</p> <p>4. Where the trial judge has not been requested to reduce his charge to writing, and has not done so, his statement as to the charge given must be accepted in this court. So, also, where no testimony is brought up with respect to his statement, made in signing a bill of exceptions, to the effect that no testimony was given which called for a charge specially requested on behalf of the defendant.</p> <p>5. The ruling of the district court refusing a new trial applied for on the ground of newly discovered evidence will not be disturbed where the motion is supported by the affidavit of the accused alone; where neither the witnesses nor their affidavits are produced on the hearing of such
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding where “the record in this case . . . is replete with references to [p]laintiff’s mental health issues” that the ALJ should have found plaintiff’s depression and anxiety to be severe
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.