State v. Stephens

Citations

• 116 La. 36
• 40 So. 523
• 1906 La. LEXIS 462

Syllabus

<p>1. Jury — Criminal Cases — Challenges — Disqualification—Effect.</p> <p>In a criminal prosecution, the state has a right to demand jurors who are willing to convict the accused of the crime with which he is charged, upon legal evidence, whether direct 1 or circumstantial, and its challenge, for cause, •of jurors who are unwilling to convict on cir-cumstantial evidence alone should be sustained, and does not authorize the assumption that such evidence alone will be offered on the trial, nor •does it bind the state to offer only evidence of that character.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Eor cases in point, see vol. 31, Cent. Dig. Jury, § 487.]</p> <p>2. Witnesses—Criminal Prosecution—Witness eor State—Suspense—Impeachment.</p> <p>Where the state voluntarily calls a witness in support of a criminal prosecution, and is surprised by his testimony, her prosecuting ■officer may interrogate such witness as to previous declarations, inconsistent with the testimony given, with a view of testing his recollection and leading him, if mistaken, to reconsider what he has said; and such officer may call other witnesses to prove that the facts are •otherwise than as testified to, but, if the sole purpose and effect of the interrogation, of the witness, or of the testimony offered in contradiction of his statements, is to discredit him, then such interrogation and such testimony are inadmissible, unless the officer has been entrapped into calling a hostile witness, and even then it is not sufficient to justify the impeachment of the witness that he should have failed to give the testimony that was expected, but it is necessary that he should have testified against the state and in favor of the defendant in some material matter.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Eor cases in point, see vol. 50, •Cent. Dig. Witnesses, §§ 1268-1270.]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>