State v. Thompson

Citations

• 109 La. 296
• 33 So. 320
• 1903 La. LEXIS 385

Syllabus

<p>MURDER — EVIDENCE—CHARACTER OF DECEASED — KNOWLEDGE OF FORMER TRIAL — REMARKS OF COUNSEL.</p> <p>1. Tfie question excluded by ruling of tfie court of which ruling defendant complains had reference to the deceased’s assorted dishonesty, and no reference to his reputation as a dangerous man, whose approach or presence one had cause to apprehend.</p> <p>-2. The defendant was not prevented from proving the desperate character of the deceased; that he was usually armed and prone to use weapons; nor was the defendant prevented from proving that the nickname of the deceased was “Draws;” owing to his asserted readiness to draw weapons.</p> <p>3. The testimony of a witness (since dead) on a former trial was not offered for the purpose of proving the prior trial of the defendant. The manner the testimony was admitted does not suggest that the jury were made'aware of the fact of the former trial. If, as one of the incidents of the trial, it casually becomes known to the jury that the defendant had already been tried, and the verdict found annulled, that would not afford ground to set aside the last verdict and to grant a new trial. The trial judge appears to have been careful not to let the fact itself, .of a former trial, and verdict annulled, be shown. With safeguards observed, the testimony of a witness (since deceased) taken on a former trial was admissible.</p> <p>4. Where the court, at the time of their utterance, rebukes counsel for remarks uncalled for by the issues, the defendant has no cause of complaint. It appears that the remarks complained of were deductions of the prosecuting officer from facts shown which he deemed pertinent to the issues.</p> <p>They do not appear to have been prejudicial to the defendant, — particularly as the jury were instructed to disregard them.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>