State v. Williams

Citations

• 111 La. 205
• 35 So. 521
• 1903 La. LEXIS 522

Syllabus

<p>SHOOTING WITH INTENT TO KILL—EVIDENCE— PÜBLIO RESORT—RIGHT TO EJECT—WITNESS —EXAMINATION — THREATS — CHARACTER — INSTRUCTIONS.</p> <p>1. Even if error had been committed on the line it is averred it was committed, it did not bear upon the finding of the jury, and would not have been material.</p> <p>2. The witness testified to a fact, and his testimony was not a deduction and opinion from a fact.</p> <p>3. It having been testified, as stated by the trial judge, that the house in which it was charged that the defendant committed the crime for which he was tried was a gambling house, testimony was admissible to show since when it was a gambling house.</p> <p>4. The right of ejectment from a saloon or public resort may be, in certain circumstances, different from that which may be exercised to eject an offending person from a domicile.</p> <p>5. A descriptive statement relative to how the man wounded must have fallen is not an expression of an opinion not admissible. In addition, it was not prejudicial and cause for reversal.</p> <p>6. A leading question which evokes a negative answer, not material, is no ground for reversal.</p> <p>7. The facts, under repeated decisions, must be taken as certified to by the trial judge, unless their correctness is challenged and their inaccuracy is shown.</p> <p>8. A witness should not be cross-examined on an assumption of the facts touching which nothing had been heard, and which, in addition, as sought to be proven, might confuse, rather than enlighten, the jury.</p> <p>9. The trial judge had discretion to determine whether foundation had been laid to admit testimony of threat or character. He decided that it had not been laid, and in consequence the testimony offered was not admitted. Defendant is not entitled to the full benefit of this defense, as relates to the facts, for at least part of the testimony in this line was admitted, and went to the jury.</p> <p>10. Whether the dwelling of defendant was his home, or the extent tha