State v. Nathaniel

Citations

• 52 La. Ann. 558

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. The finding of the District Judge that, irrespective of the question, “■whether the provision of Act No. 67 of 1894, requiring the applicant to set forth, under oath, what he 'expects to prove by the additional- witnesses whom he desires summoned, is constitutional or not,” the defendant herein had not exercised due diligence with respect to the summoning of such witnesses, will not be reviewed by this court, since it presents no disputed question of law, but merely an issue of fact.</p> <p>2. The provision of Act 67 of 1894, which requires that an application for subpoenas for additional witnesses shall set forth, under oath, what the applicant expects to prove by such witnesses, does not contravene the provision of Article 9 of the Constitution, which secures to the accused in a criminal prosecution the right “to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his behalf.” The statutory provision in question is intended to apply only to witnesses summoned at the expense of the' parish, and is not restrictive of the right of the accused to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses at his own expense.</p>