State v. Latham

Citations

• 124 La. 876
• 50 So. 780
• 1909 La. LEXIS 559

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law (§ 923*) — New Trial — Incompetency of Juror.</p> <p>The defendant, indicted for and convicted of manslaughter by a verdict of nine to three by a jury, was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. He has appealed.</p> <p>The complaint urged before the Supreme Court is: That one of the nine jurors who voted for conviction had on his voir dire declared that he had never expressed an opinion that defendant was guilty of the crime charged; that in consequence of that declaration he was accepted by the defense; that after the verdict it had for the first time come to the knowledge of the defendant that this declaration was not true; that defendant moved for a new trial on that ground, and attached to his motion the affidavits of four persons showing that the juror’s declaration on his voir dire was not true; that on the trial of the motion the trial judge incorrectly overruled it.</p> <p>For reasons assigned, the ruling' of the district judge refusing on defendant’s motion to grant him a new trial is set aside, as is also the sentence of the court; but the Supreme Court refuses, under present conditions, to set aside the verdict of the jury and remand the cause to the district court for a new trial on the merits. It reinstates defendant’s motion for a new trial and remands the cause to the district court for a hearing and trial .on that motion and for further proceedings according to law.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>