State v. Stewart

Citations

• 117 La. 476
• 41 So. 798
• 1906 La. LEXIS 724

Syllabus

<p>1. Jury — Commissioners—Oath of Office.</p> <p>The oath administered to the jury commissioners was that required to be taken by all officers in the state, to which was added a special oath to discharge and impartially perform all the duties incumbent upon them as jury commissioners for the parish of St. Mary. That carried with it as a consequence an obligation to discharge and impartially perform the duties thrown upon them by the act of 1898. There was no necessity for mentioning that particular act.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 81, Cent. Dig. Jury, § 268.]</p> <p>2. Same — Quashing Venire — Grounds.</p> <p>The motion to quash the venire was properly overruled. The averments of the motion were not such as under the fifteenth section of Act No. 135, p. 223, of 1898, would have justified the court in sustaining the motion. No fraud was committed, and no injury shown.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 81, Cent. Dig. Jury, §§ 282, 359, 367.]</p> <p>3. Criminal Law — Trial — Compelling Calling of Witnesses.</p> <p>Defendant in a criminal action is not entitled to demand as a matter of right that the district attorney should call all the eyewitnesses to the alleged crime charged against him to the stand as witnesses.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 14, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 1570.]</p> <p>■4. Homicide — Assault with Intent to Kill —Evidence.</p> <p>A defendant charged, under section 791 of ■the Revised Statutes, with having cut another with a dangerous weapon with intent to murd»r, •objected to a witness being allowed to testify that the weapon with which he was cut by the accused, was a razor, on the ground that it was not alleged in the indictment that that was •the instrument used. The case was on trial before the jury. No motion to quash the indictment had been made nor bill of particulars asked for. There was no legal ground for preventing the witness from testifying. The statute did not call for the naming