State v. Craft

Citations

• 118 La. 117
• 42 So. 718
• 1906 La. LEXIS 843

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Law — Demonstrative Evidence.</p> <p>Where, in a case of homicide, the clothing worn by the deceased at the time of the killing is sought to be introduced in evidence by the state, after it had been affirmatively shown that it was in the same condition it was at the time of the homicide and had not been tampered with, it was not error in the court to allow the same to be used in evidence to corroborate the testimony of an eyewitness to the killing, in whose possession it had been continuously kept. Tardiness in producing the clothes was a fact going to the effect of the evidence, not to its admissibility.</p> <p>TEd. Note. — -For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 1.4, Criminal Law, § 891.]</p> <p>2. Same — Trtal—Preliminary Questions op Fact— Questions por Jury — Homicide-Previous Threats.</p> <p>The decision of the Supreme Court in State V. Ford, 37 La. Ann. 444, touching the right of the trial judge to determine whether a proper foundation had been laid for the introduction of evidence of previous difficulties between the deceased and the accused, or as to threats made by the former towards the latter, is affirmed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14. Criminal Law, § 1701.]</p> <p>3. Criminal Law — Copy op Testimony.</p> <p>Defendant, in a criminal case, has not the right to require that the trial judge should order the clerk to take down, in writing, all the evidence of the eyewitnesses to the killing in advance of any testimony having been adduced or objection to testimony having been made. The judge’s reservation of his right to have testimony taken in writing (of which privilege he did not avail himself) fully protected him.</p> <p>Breaux, C. J., dissenting.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>