State v. Wren

Citations

• 121 La. 55
• 46 So. 99
• 1908 La. LEXIS 630

Syllabus

<p>1. Jury — Disqualification.</p> <p>Defendants’ case, on a charge of robbery, coming up for trial, defendants objected to going to trial on the ground that the regular jurors in attendance upon the court, and who would have to act upon their case if the trial were proceeded with, had been present during their trial on another charge of robbery. Sold, that the court properly overruled the objection, since the presence of the jurors during the other trial did not necessarily have the effect of disqualifying them.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 31, Jury, .§ 460.]</p> <p>2. Witnesses —Cross-Examination—Discretion oe Court.</p> <p>The court has a certain discretion in the conduct of trials and hence may stop counsel from indefinitely prolonging a cross-examination by repeatedly going over the same matter.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 50, Witnesses, § 928.]</p> <p>3.Criminal Law — Argument oe Counsel— Reversal.</p> <p>The fact that the district attorney has argued to the jury an erroneous proposition of law is not good ground for setting aside the verdict.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in' point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 1682-1687.]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>