State v. Wright

Citations

• 104 La. 44

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. In an indictment for shooting with a pistol with intent to kill, the trial court charged the jury that one of two verdicts only could be returned— “guilty” or “not guilty.” No objection was raised on behalf of the accused at the time, no bill of exception reserved, and no special charge as to other verdicts requested. A conviction followed, and then, in a motion for new trial, it is set up that the court erred in the charge referred to, and that besides a verdict of “guilty,” or one of “not guilty,” 5t was competent for the jury to have returned a verdict of “assault with a dangerous weapon,” or of “assault with intent to kill,” or of simple “assault.” To the ruling of the lower Judge, refusing the new trial, a bill of exceptions was taken and the case brought here.</p> <p>Held : The objection comes too late when raised for the first time on a motion for new trial. The time to have raised it was at the conclusion of .the .charge. •</p> <p>2. The accused cannot be permitted to take his chances of acquittal under the charge as delivered, and, afterwards, when fche chance goes against him, object to the charge and urge it as grounds for new trial.</p> <p>3. Capital cases an exception to the rule.</p> <p>4. Admonition to District Judges to carefully instruct jurors as to the several verdicts that may be responsive under the law to indictments.</p>