State v. Farrier

Citations

• 114 La. 579
• 38 So. 460
• 1905 La. LEXIS 510

Syllabus

<p>CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE OE OTHER CRIMES— OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE — ASSOCIATION — ELECTION OE OEEICERS — PROOE — TRIAL — REMARKS OE JUDGE — EALSE PRETENSES — EVIDENCE.</p> <p>1. There are exceptions to the rule that on a prosecution for one crime it cannot be shown that defendant on another occasion committed a crime, even though it be a crime of the same sort. Where testimony of that character has been admitted on the trial, the appellate court, in the absence of an affirmative shdwing to the contrary, must assume that the ruling of the trial court was right, and that it was admitted as falling under some one of the exceptions.</p> <p>2. Objections urged to testimony that it was “immaterial,” “irrelevant,” and “inadmissible” are so general as to furnish a weak basis for reversal. In order to test their force, it would be necessary for the appellate court to be advised as to the condition of the entire evidence in the record. State v. Primeaux, 29 South. 110, 104 La. 365. Objections on those grounds to the introduction of certain letters not annexed to any bill of exceptions might possibly have been well founded, but the Supreme Court, having no means of knowing the force and bearing which such letters could or did have upon the verdict, could not reverse on the presumption that they were prejudicial.</p> <p>3. It was competent for the defense to prove by a witness, who was present at a meeting held for the purpose of an election of officers of an association, who were elected.</p> <p>The books of the association, if they contained a record of the election (which was not shown) although proper, were not the only evidence on that point, and the fact of who presided and acted as officers at the meeting could also be proved by the witness. The fact that the witness was not a member of the association does not render him incompetent to give testimony as to what he actually heard and saw.</p> <p>4. The views of the Supreme Court touching-comments made by the trial judge