State v. Cook

Citations

• 52 La. Ann. 114

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. The change effected by Act No. 135 of 1808, whereby petit juries are selected from thirty jurors drawn from the general venire box, instead of being selected from thirty-four jurors so drawn, is a change in the mode of procedure which does not alter the situation to the disadvantage of a person tried under the Act of 1808 for a crime committed while the Act of 1800 was in force, and the operation of the Act of 1S98 is not, therefore, e® post facto.</p> <p>2. Ruling of the judge a quo refusing a continuance in- order to enable a defendant charged with murder to obtain the attendance of a witness to prove threats by the deceased, will not be reversed when it appears that there had been a mistrial from which the judge was in a position to know that the defendant would not, probably, be able to lay the foundation for the introduction of such evidence; when as a matter of fact such evidence was actually offered on the second trial and excluded because no foundation had been laid, and when in defendant’s motion for new trial it-is not claimed that the evidence of the absent witness could have been offered if he had been present.</p> <p>3. whether remarks made by a juror in the presence of other jurors and of the deputy sheriffs in charge whilst a case is being tried amount to such misconduct as would justify the setting aside of the verdict, depends upon whether the remarks, considering all the circumstances, were of a character to justify the conclusion that the juror was an unfit person to discharge the duty imposed on him.</p>