State v. Cunningham

Citations

• 123 La. 867
• 49 So. 601
• 1909 La. LEXIS 794

Syllabus

<p>1. Facts.</p> <p>The trial judge’s statement regarding certain facts, brought up on appeal for review in connection with the point of law to which these facts gave rise, differ somewhat from the account as given and as understood by the defense.</p> <p>2. Complaint Not Timely Urged.</p> <p>It is not disputed that the court instructed the jury, and that no bill of exceptions after the instruction — in fact, no bill of exceptions at all —was taken during the trial.</p> <p>3. Objections Raised on Motion eoe New Trial.</p> <p>On the application for a new trial the points that had arisen during the trial, and to which no objection was urged after the court had instructed the jury, were raised anew for a new trial.</p> <p>4. Criminal Law (§ 1048*) — Presentation and Reservation of Grounds oe Review —Exception not Taken in Time.</p> <p>The court ruled correctly. It was too late to raise the point, even if it had merit originally.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2670; Dec. Dig. § 1048.*]</p> <p>5. Criminal Law (§ 730*) — Argument oe District Attorney — Action op Court.</p> <p>The district attorney’s statement in argument was not noted at the time, and no bill of exceptions taken. He was checked by the court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1093; Dec. Dig. § 730.*]</p> <p>6. Criminal Law (§ 957*) — New Trial — Impeachment op Verdict by Juror.</p> <p>The jurors could not be heard to impeach their own verdict.</p> <p>[Ed. Note — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2392-2395; Dec. Dig. § 957.*]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>